Krishna & Anr. vs Lala Ram & Ors.
2010 Latest Caselaw 5771 Del

              *         IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI


                                                 Date of Reserve: 11th November, 2010

                                Date of Order: December 20, 2010

                                    + Crl. MC No.3017/2010
%                                                                             20.12.2010
        Krishna & Anr.                                               ...Petitioner

        Versus

        Lala Ram & Ors.                                              ...Respondents

Counsels:

Dr. Sarbjit Sharma with Ms. Seema Agarwal and Ms. Prerna Verma for petitioners.
Mr. Sunil Sharma, APP for State/respondent with SI Amit Kumar, PS Gokul Puri.


        JUSTICE SHIV NARAYAN DHINGRA

1.      Whether reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?

2.      To be referred to the reporter or not?

3.      Whether judgment should be reported in Digest?


                                           JUDGMENT

1. This petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C has been preferred by the petitioner for

quashing of the order dated 12th August 2010 passed by learned ASJ dismissing the

revision of the petitioner against the order of SDM dated 11th September 2009. One Lala

Ram Gupta was forcibly dispossessed from the property situated at D-60, Prem Vihar,

Karawal Nagar, Delhi on 29th November 2000 by Mr. K.G. Tyagi, SHO Police Station

Gokul Puri and other police officials. He made a complaint about his forcible

dispossession to various authorities naming all the police officers who were involved in

his forcible dispossession. A perusal of record shows that he made complaint to

commissioner of police, Prime Minister, National Human Rights Commission and to the

SDM. In all his complaints, he had pleaded that he had purchased this property for a

sum of Rs.2,40,000/- from one Dharamvir Singh on 8th May, 2000 and he was put in

Crl.MC 3017/2010 Page 1 Of 6 possession of the property by Mr. D.V. Singh and he was living in this property with his

family member till he was dispossessed. On 29th November 2000 at about 10/11 am Mr.

K.G. Tyagi SHO Police Station Gokul Puri, ASI Rohtash, one official of police, Mr. V.S.

Rana, Mr. Rajbir Singh Rana, Rajender Singh, a property dealer, Mrs. Krishna Devi and

her husband Om Prakash came to the house. The SHO and ASI Rohtas started beating

him in his house and went on beating till he fell down on the ground. Then SHO caught

hold of him from his collar and pulled him upto his vehicle and he forcibly thrust him into

it. He was taken to police station and he was beaten at the police station and kept there

for whole night and next morning he was taken to his house in the same government

vehicle. The police humiliated his wife showing insulting behaviour and took all his

belongings out from his house and he and his family members were asked to run away

and if they were seen near the house again, they would be shot dead. He submitted that

since 29th November 2000, his house was occupied by ASI and KG Tyagi and their

goons. In his complaints to various authorities he pleaded for justice and mercy. On his

complaint under Section 145 Cr.P.C made to SDM, Seelampur, SDM called a report of

the police. The police report would show that a report was filed at the police station by

one Dharamvir and Smt. Krishna Devi and in pursuant of that DD report; police did visit

the premises in question on 29th November 2000 and enquired about the documents of

ownership of the said plot. It is submitted that Lala Ram was not able to produce

ownership document whereas complainant Hari Om produced the documents of the

above plot and an order dated 9th November 2000 passed by Shri B.S. Chumbak, Civil

Judge, Tis Hazari Courts. These documents were seized through a memo by the SI and

a case under Section 432, 448 IPC was registered against Lala Ram on the basis of

statement of Hari Om.

2. It is apparent that this case of trespass could not have been registered against

Lala Ram unless Lala Ram was in possession of the property. The report of police to the

SDM, therefore, confirmed that Lala Ram was in physical possession. The SHO in his

Crl.MC 3017/2010 Page 2 Of 6 report further stated that Dharamvir Singh did state that he had executed an agreement

to sell in favour of Lala Ram in May, 2000 but he stated that the date of executing GPA

was 30th June, 2000 and Lala Ram remained absent on the date of agreement,

therefore, he cancelled the agreement on 30th June, 2000. Dharamvir Singh did not

produce document of cancellation of agreement and took time to produce cancelled

documents. In fact, this report of police should have been sufficient for the SDM to pass

the impugned order of re-putting Lala Ram in re-possession. However, perusal of record

would show that the SDM did not act upon the application under Section 145 Cr.P.C

made by Lala Ram. Lala Ram had been alleging that he was owner of plot no.D-60, Hari

Ram, the complainant had a decree in respect of a different plot altogether i.e. J-87.

3. The order of learned SDM dated 11th September 2009 shows that after the

complaint was received from Lala Ram on 15th December 2000 in respect to property

no.D-60 about his forcible eviction, no notice was sent to respondent till November 2004.

That shows the callousness in which the then SDM acted. In the meantime, Lala Ram

was murdered and his widow Veerwati had applied for being brought on record as his Lr.

In December 2004, notices were issued to the opposite party and thereafter the case

was taken up by the succeeding SDM. The complainant produced witnesses Idris and

Ram Saran who filed their affidavits in respect of complaint. Smt. Veerwati, wife of

deceased Lala Ram, also produced a part of copy of agreement to sell dated May, 2000

in support of her claim (first page) showing purchase of the property from respondent

no.1 Dharamvir. Krishna Devi respondent no.2 filed copy of GPA made by Smt. Saroj in

favour of Ranbir Singh, Smt. Imarti Devi and Smt. Krishna Devi, no other witness was

produced. After perusal of evidence, the learned SDM came to conclusion that it was

Lala Ram Gupta and his family who were in possession of the property and he was

forcibly dispossessed. He, therefore, directed that they should be put in possession.

4. The learned ASJ after considering the entire record, came to conclusion that

Crl.MC 3017/2010 Page 3 Of 6 there was no infirmity in the order of learned SDM as learned SDM was only to decide as

to who was in possession and he rightly came to conclusion that Lala Ram was in

possession.

5. It is submitted by the counsel for the petitioners that learned SDM ignored all

other evidence like the suit filed by the petitioners and decree passed by Shri B.S.

Chumbak, learned Civil Judge in favour of petitioner.

6. I have perused the suit filed by Dharamvir Singh against the petitioner. This suit

was filed in 1997 by Dharamvir Singh against Krishna Devi, Murti Devi and Rajbir and

Rajender. This suit was filed for declaration and injunction and Dharamvir Singh had

sought declaration that he should be declared owner of the suit property No.D-60. He

sought permanent injunction against the defendants. In this suit, Dharamvir Singh had

categorically stated that he was in physical possession of the suit property. The suit was

filed in 1997. It is obvious that Lala Ram was not aware of filing of this suit by Dharamvir

Singh and Dharamvir Singh without disclosing about the disputes in respect to the

property, sold the property to Lala Ram and received consideration from him and handed

over possession of the property to Lala Ram in May, 2000. The suit filed by Dharamvir

Singh against Smt. Krishna Devi and others was compromised by Dharamvir Singh

without knowledge of Lala Ram neither Lala Ram could have gathered knowledge of the

same since Lala Ram was not made a party to the suit. The compromise as entered into

between Dharamvir Singh and others is on record. The application under Order 23 Rule

3 CPC was made before the Civil Judge and in this application, it was stated that

plaintiffs i.e. Dharamvir Singh admitted claim of defendants in the suit No.481 of 1997 in

respect to the suit property bearing number J-87 which was the real number of property

D-60 for which the suit was filed. It is stated by plaintiffs that defendants were in physical

possession of the suit property and the plaintiff had no right, title or interest with regard to

the suit property. This application was made on 9th November 2000 before the learned

Crl.MC 3017/2010 Page 4 Of 6 civil judge. It seems that learned Civil Judge disposed of the suit in terms of the

application for compromise and immediately on the same day, a DD report was filed

before the police against Lala Ram who was in actual physical possession of the

property and with the help of police, Lala Ram Gupta was thrown out of the property. It is

obvious from the perusal of the record that the suit was a collusive suit filed by

Dharamvir Singh and Smt. Krishna Devi and Dharamvir Singh who had claimed himself

to be in possession, after voluntarily handing over the property to Lala Ram Gupta, made

a false statement before the learned Civil Judge in civil case pending between him and

present petitioner that the respondent was actually in possession i.e. present petitioner

and on the basis of a compromise he obtained an order from the court of learned Civil

Judge. On the basis of this compromise order, Lala Ram Gupta was forcibly thrown out

with the help of police.

7. The most unfortunate part of this entire episode is that despite hue and cry made

by Lala Ram Gupta of injustice being done to him by SHO Mr. K.G. Tyagi, no action has

been taken against the SHO and other police officials who must have been paid hefty

amount by petitioner to get Lala Ram Gupta dispossessed from the property. The

learned SDM rightly came to conclusion that it was Lala Ram Gupta who was in actually

physical possession of the property. Although learned SDM has not mentioned about the

suit filed by Dharamvir Singh against Krishna Devi but this is not an infirmity in his order

since this civil suit was not between Lala Ram Gupta (deceased) and the respondent.

The civil suit ostensibly was a collusive suit between Dharamvir Singh and Krishna Devi,

the present petitioner. Lala Ram Gupta was not even made a party to the civil suit. The

learned SDM and ADJ rightly came to conclusion that it was Lala Ram Gupta who was in

possession of the property on 29th November 2000 when he was forcibly dispossessed

from the property by the then SHO and other police officials.

8. Keeping in view the above facts and circumstances, the petition is hereby

Crl.MC 3017/2010 Page 5 Of 6 dismissed. Directions are given to the Commissioner of Police for initiating action against

those police officials who were involved in forcibly dispossession of deceased Lala Ram

Gupta and his family. A report be filed within 40 days before this Court as to what action

has been taken against the police officials. Present SHO Police Station Seelampur is

directed to handover physical possession of the property to Lr of Lala Ram Gupta within

a week from today and file a report in this respect before this Court.

9. List this petition awaiting reports of Commissioner of Police and SHO police

station Seelampur now on 27th January 2011.

December 20, 2010                                        SHIV NARAYAN DHINGRA, J
rd




Crl.MC 3017/2010                                                          Page 6 Of 6