Delhi High Court
Sadhu Singh vs State & Others on 22 February, 2011
Author: Hima Kohli
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ W.P.(CRL) 73/2011
Decided on 22.2.2011
IN THE MATTER OF :
SADHU SINGH ..... Petitioner
Through : Ms. Maldeep Sidhu, Adv.
versus
STATE & OTHERS ..... Respondents
Through : Mr. Saleem Ahmed, ASC for
R-1, 4 & 5/State
with Investigating Officer.
Mr. Gajender K. Singhal, Adv. for
R-2 & 3.
CORAM
* HON'BLE MS.JUSTICE HIMA KOHLI
1. Whether Reporters of Local papers may No
be allowed to see the Judgment?
2. To be referred to the Reporter or not? No
3. Whether the judgment should be No
reported in the Digest?
HIMA KOHLI, J. (Oral)
1. The present petition is filed by the petitioner under Article 226 of
the Constitution of India read with Section 482 Cr.P.C. praying inter alia for
directions to respondents No.4 and 5 to provide protection to the petitioner
by filing FIR against respondents No.2 and 3 and further restraining them
from entering the property of the petitioner and harassing him. Respondent
No.2 is the elder son of the petitioner.
2. Status report is handed over by the learned ASC for State. In
para 1 of the status report, it is mentioned that on 15.1.11, a DD No.17A
was received at PS Kirti Nagar, Delhi, that a quarrel took place at the
premises of the petitioner. Upon inquiry, it was revealed that there was an
ongoing dispute between the family members of the petitioner regarding
some construction on the first floor of the premises bearing No.FA-291A,
M.S. Garden, Kirti Nagar, Delhi, in respect of which a Local Commissioner
was appointed by the civil court in a suit for injunction instituted by the
younger son of the petitioner against respondents No.2 & 3. It is stated that
as there was an apprehension of breach of peace, proceedings under
Sections 107/150 Cr.P.C. were initiated against both the parties and the said
proceedings are still going on before the Executive Magistrate, West District.
3. On 26.1.2011, again a call was received by the police regarding
a quarrel at the aforesaid premises. When the SI visited the site, he found
out that a quarrel had taken place between several persons and that while
the aggressors, who were Mr. Survinder Singh, Mr. Guljeet Singh, sons of
respondent No.3, and Mr. Navrang Pal, respondent No.3 herein, had
sustained minor injuries, the other injured persons, namely, Mr. Harjeet
Singh, younger son of the petitioner, and Mr. Nikhil, grand-son-in-law of the
petitioner, had already been shifted to DDU Hospital by the PCR. A report
regarding the nature of injuries has however not been received till date.
Learned ASC for the State states that the same shall be received within this
week.
4. Counsel for the petitioner states that the Local Commissioner
appointed in the suit for injunction has submitted a report dated 24.11.2011,
wherein it is recorded that on the date of inspection, possession of the first
floor of the premises was with the plaintiff therein, i.e., Mr. Harjeet Singh,
younger son of the petitioner. She hands over a copy of the said report.
5. This fact is disputed by the counsel for respondents No.2 & 3,
who states that a suit for declaration, cancellation of documents, partition,
permanent and mandatory injunction has been filed by his clients against
the petitioner and other members of his family in respect of the aforesaid
premises before the learned ADJ, registered as C.S. No.68/2011, wherein an
ex parte injunction was granted, vide order dated 7.2.2011, directing the
parties to maintain status quo in respect of the suit property and also
restraining defendants No.1 & 2 therein, i.e., to the petitioner and his
younger son, Mr. Harjeet Singh, from undertaking any construction activities
in the said suit premises till further orders. He also hands over a copy of the
aforesaid order.
6. It is clear that the aforesaid dispute revolves around the
residential premises, mentioned hereinabove. The parties, who are closely
related to each other, are at loggerheads on the issue of ownership and
possession of the said premises. Both the parties have invoked civil
remedies against each other and the suits are stated to be pending trial.
7. Disputed questions of facts have been raised by both sides in the
present case which cannot be gone into in the present proceedings. This
Court therefore declines to entertain the present petition, more so when
both sides state that they have filed civil suits relating to the property,
subject matter of the present petition. However, to avoid any law and
order situation, it is agreed that till the next date of hearing fixed before the
learned ADJ in C.S.No.68/2011, i.e., till 8.4.2011, respondents No.2 & 3
shall not try to enter the aforesaid premises. Similarly, the petitioner
undertakes that neither he, nor those residing with him at the premises will
carry out any construction in the subject property and will maintain status
quo with regard thereto till further orders are passed either in the suit filed
by them and pending before the trial court or till the order dated 7.2.2011
passed in CS No.68/2011 is vacated, altered or modified.
8. In view of the clashing claims of both the parties, with regard to
the physical possession of the first floor of the suit premises as on date, the
SHO of the area is directed to seal the rooms on the first floor and present
himself before the learned ADJ on the next date of hearing fixed before her
in CS No.68/2011, i.e., on 8.4.2011 for appropriate orders to be passed by
the said Court. Both parties shall bring this order to the notice of the
concerned Civil Courts on the next date of hearing.
9. The petition is disposed of.
A copy of this order be given dasti to the learned ASC for the
State for compliance.
(HIMA KOHLI)
FEBRUARY 22, 2011 JUDGE
sk
