Delhi High Court
Manjula Verma Krippendorf vs Commissioner Mcd & Anr on 19 May, 2016
#4
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Date of decision: 19.05.2016
W.P.(CRL) 2530/2014 & CRL.M.A. Nos.605/2015, 5393/2015 &
6948/2015
MANJULA VERMA KRIPPENDORF ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. M.L. Yadav, Advocate with Mr.
Lokesh Chandra, Advocate along
with petitioner in person
versus
COMMISSIONER MCD & ANR ..... Respondents
Through: Mr. Ajay Digpaul, Advocate with
Mr. Kunal Gosain, Advocate for R-
1/SDMC
Mr. Rajesh Mahajan, ASC
(Criminal) with Ms. Parul Jamwal,
Advocate with SI Deepak Panwar,
PS- Defence Colony for R-2
Mr. Vikas Pahwa, Sr. Advocate with
Mr. Dhruv Gupta, Ms. Kinnori
Ghosh and Mr. Aditya Dogra,
Advocates for R-3
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SIDDHARTH MRIDUL
SIDDHARTH MRIDUL, J (ORAL)
1. The present petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India
read with Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 prays as
follows:-
"In view of the above facts, premises and
circumstances, the duty bound, and fully conscious
of its responsibilities, the petitioner, most
respectfully prays that this Hon'ble Court may
graciously be pleased to:
a) Issue directions to the MCD to seal the first and
second floors of the property as per the affidavit
and status report given to the High Court on
15.01.07 and 10.07.08.
b) Issue a further writ order or direction kin nature
of a Mandamus, directing the respondents to
restore the security given to the petitioner and
her handicapped daughter.
c) Issue a further order to the Commissioner and
other Police Officials to explain their failure in
protecting the petitioner rights and unlawful
detention in the night of 02.07.2011.
d) Quash the three FIRs No.85/2011, 146/2010 and
P.S. Defence Colony and the connected charge
sheets filed by the respondents at the behest of
first and second floors tresspassers against the
petitioner and stay the proceedings therein before
the Court of Smt. Ld. M.M., Saket Courts in the
meanwhile.
e) Direct the respondents to compensate the
petitioner to the tune of Rs.50 lacs (Rupees Fifty
Lacs only) for the mental and physical torture
that she and her handicapped daughter is going
through all these years for failure on their part in
protecting her constitutional fundamental rights.
f) Kindly grant the petitioner a lawyer through
Delhi Legal Services as the petitioner is retired,
and has financial difficulty in copying with the
numerous cases that the defendants have caused
by their connivance with the tresspassers and
builder Vijay Dixit.
g) Permit the petitioner to amend the suit as she has
prepared it without access to legal support.
h) Grant such other, further relief/s in the facts and
circumstances of the case as this Hon'ble Court
may deem just and equitable in favour of the
petitioner."
2. Insofar as, prayer clause (b) is concerned, this Court by way of order
dated 19.12.2014 had directed the State to "sensitize the local police
officers about the apprehension expressed by the petitioner to her and her
daughter and sensitize the Beat Staff to be more vigilant so as to ensure the
safety of the petitioner and her daughter."
3. Dr. Krippendorf, the petitioner herein, states that, she now has two
Personal Security Officers (PSOs) assigned by the Special Cell of the
Delhi Police, to ensure her as well as her daughter's safety and well-being
and is satisfied qua their safety.
4. Insofar as, prayer clause (f) is concerned, the petitioner is being
represented by Mr. M.L. Yadav, Advocate, who has been appointed by the
Delhi High Court Legal Services Committee, subsequent to the directions
passed by this Court by way of order dated 10.08.2015.
5. Insofar as, prayer clause (a) is concerned, Mr. Yadav, learned
counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner does not press this prayer and
prays for a liberty to institute an appropriate proceeding in accordance with
law, if so advised.
6. Prayer clauses (c), (d), (e) and (g) are not pressed, save and except to
state that, in the subject FIRs challans have been filed and the petitioner
prays for liberty to seek discharge in those proceedings, before the
concerned Courts, in accordance with law, in relation to prayer clause (c),
(d) and (e) and move an appropriate application before the competent court
in relation to prayer clause (g).
7. Liberty, as prayed for, is granted.
8. In view of the foregoing, all the prayers, as aforesaid, have been
considered and appropriate directions issued, where necessary.
9. However, Dr. Krippendorf, the petitioner herein, states that a large
number of complaints have been addressed to the police authorities by her
qua numerous incidents that have occurred at her residential house,
namely, B-56, Defence Colony, New Delhi. Mr. Yadav, learned counsel
appearing on behalf of the petitioner would urge that the DCP of the
concerned area be directed to look into those complaints and a response in
this behalf would be necessary.
10. Mr. Mahajan, learned Additional Standing Counsel (Criminal)
appearing on behalf of the police states on instructions from the IO in the
subject FIR, namely, SI Deepak Panwar, Police Station- Defence Colony
that he has now received copies of the complaints from Dr. Krippendorf,
the petitioner herein, and that the DCP (South District) shall take
appropriate steps on the said complaints, in accordance with law, under
intimation to the petitioner, within a period of six months from today.
11. Directed accordingly.
12. With the above directions, the writ petition is disposed of. All
pending applications also stand disposed of.
13. Dasti.
SIDDHARTH MRIDUL, J
MAY 19, 2016
dn
