Delhi High Court
Ram Kishan & Anr vs State & Ors on 23 July, 2012
Author: Manmohan
$~
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ W.P.(CRL) 1597/2010
RAM KISHAN & ANR ..... Petitioners
Through Mr. Banamali Shukla, Advocate.
versus
STATE & ORS ..... Respondents
Through Mr. Saleem Ahmed, ASC with
Mr. Dushyant Kumar, Advocate for
State .
SI Pradeep Singh, PS Timarpur
Mr. Murari Tiwari, Advocate for R-5.
% Date of Decision : 23rd July, 2012
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANMOHAN
JUDGMENT
MANMOHAN, J : (Oral)
1. Present writ petition has been filed claiming the following
relief:
"It is, therefore, prayed that the present writ petition may
kindly be accepted and a writ of Mandamus and/or any
other appropriate writ(s), order(s) and/or direction(s)
may kindly be issued thereby directing the respondents
Nos.1 to 3 to take legal action against the respondent
Nos. 4 and 5 and to provide adequate police protection to
the petitioners and the respondents Nos.4 and 5 may be
removed from the said premises of the petitioners i.e. 2nd
Floor of property bearing No.B-195-196, Second Floor,
Nehru Vihar, Delhi-110054, and the petitioners may be
put back into possession of their said property, in the
interest of justice."
2. It is stated that daughter-in-law of petitioners i.e. wife of
deceased son is living on the same floor with the petitioners.
Petitioners who are both senior citizens want their daughter-in-law to
vacate the premises.
3. The Petitioners case is that the property in question is their self-
acquired property and that they had severed their relations with their
deceased son and had also debarred him from inheriting their
properties vide a public notice dated 14th September, 2010. It is stated
that despite this, their daughter-in-law is pressurising them to leave
the premises and presently the petitioners are forced to live in a park
outside their own property.
4. Learned counsel for the Petitioners relies upon the judgments in
M.A.A. Annamalai vs. State of Karnataka and Anr., (2010) 8 SCC
524; S.R. Batra & Anr. vs. Smt. Taruna Batra, AIR 2007 SC 1118;
Kulwant Singh vs. Laljee Kent (Dr.) & Ors., 162 (2009) DLT 625
and Lotika Sarkar vs. Preeti Dhoundial & Ors., 167 (2010) DLT 1.
5. Police has filed a status report which reads as under:-
"It is submitted that the petitioner Sh. Ram Kishan
Sharma s/o Sh. Lakhi Ram Sharma R/o House No. 195-
196, Nehru Vihar, Delhi aged about 68 years has been
residing at the above address for the last over 22 years
as claimed by the petitioner. His son Mukesh Sharma
married with one Smt. Alpana about 12 years back and
has been residing at second floor of the same house. It is
alleged by the petitioner in his complaint that his
daughter-in-law Alpana has extra marital relation with
one Anil s/o Sh. Tilak Raj R/o A-396, Nehru Vihar, Delhi.
Petitioner has been apprehending danger to his life from
Smt. Alpana and her friend Anil. On previous occasions,
when there was a scuffle as alleged by the petitioner in
his previous complaints submitted before the Police, the
matter was settled between them and complaint was filed
as no Police actionable case was made out. Nevertheless
a kalandara u/s 107/150 Cr.P.C was made against Smt.
Alpana and her friend Anil, as the petitioner had
apprehension of danger to his life and property.
Kalandara has been filed before the court of Ld. SEM
and same is pending trial. It is wrongly alleged by the
petitioner that he and his wife are forced to live in a
park. Matter has been inquired and it was found that
petitioner and his wife are living in their house only.
Statements of Mr. Nisan Singh, Secretary, RWA, Nehru
Vihar, Delhi and Sh. H.L. Kapoor (Retd. Col.) were
recorded and same are enclosed with this report."
(emphasis supplied)
6. Respondent No.5 who is the daughter-in-law of petitioners
states that she has an order in her favour under the Domestic Violence
Act restraining the petitioners from evicting her from the residential
premises.
7. After hearing the parties, this Court is of the view that a
disputed question of fact arises for consideration in the present case,
which cannot be decided in writ proceedings. Moreover, as
proceedings under Sections 107 and 150 Cr.P.C. are stated to be
already pending before the SEM (Special Executive Magistrate), this
Court is of the view that no relief can be granted in the present
petition.
8. Further, in none of the judgments cited by the petitioners, relief
was granted in writ proceedings.
9. Consequently, present writ petition is not maintainable. It is
clarified that the Petitioners are at liberty to file appropriate
proceedings in accordance with law.
10. With the aforesaid liberty, the present petition is dismissed.
MANMOHAN, J
JULY 23, 2012
dk
