Y. K. Sabharwal,j. ( 1 ) PETITIONER is wife of Ved Prakash, Respondent No. 4. Respondent No. 3 - Smt. Mohini Devi is mother of Ved Prakash, Commissioner ofpolice and Station House Officer, Police Station Jahangirpuri are respondents Iand 2 respectively. The petitioner, inter-alia, seeks issue of writ of mandamusdirectingrespondentsland2to put herback in possession of premises No. l731-K-Block, Jahangirpuri, Delhi, claiming that she has been residing in the saidpremises since November, 1989 and was illegally dispossessed on 30/08/1993 as a result of connivance and collusion between respondents 3 and 4 and thepolice. She also seeks registration of First Information Report against the culpritsand enquiry/action against the Police officials who colluded and connived withrespondents 3 and 4 in dispossessing her. ( 2 ) PETITIONER and respondent No. 4 were married on 13/05/1989. It is notdisputed that since about November, 1989 petitioner has been living in thepremises in question and also that matrimonial disputes started between thehusband and the wife sometime in the year 1989 itself. In the reply filed byrespondents 3 and 4, their stand is not that prior to 30/08/1993 they wereliving in the premises inquestion. Their stand is that the possession of the housewas delivered to them on 30/08/1993 and since then they were living inthe house. During course of hearing, Mr. Andley, learned Counsel for respondents 3 and 4 on instructions from his client told us that his clients had not been livingin the premises in question for last about four years prior to 30/08/1993. Therefore, admittedly, respondents 3 and 4 have been living in some differentpremises and not in premises in question before 30/08/1993. Before weconsider the stand of the respondents as to the manner in which respondents 3 and4 came into possession on 30/08/1993 we may notice briefly the backgroundof the case including the disputes which were pending between the petitioner andrespondents 3 and 4 before 30/08/1993 as that will demonstrate, to a largeextent, the role played by the police in the entire episode. First, we will brieflynotice as to what petitioner says in the writ petition. ( 3 ) AFTER the marriage she went to matrimonial home at No. 2gali Mata Wali,babaji Ka Gher,402,teliwara, Delhi, and stayed there for about a month. First, we will brieflynotice as to what petitioner says in the writ petition. ( 3 ) AFTER the marriage she went to matrimonial home at No. 2gali Mata Wali,babaji Ka Gher,402,teliwara, Delhi, and stayed there for about a month. On thedate of marriage respondents 3 and 4 and other relatives had not taken with themthe dowry articles on the pretext that the articles demanded by them had not beenincluded and that they will take the complete dowry articles only when all thedemanded articles were given. There were taunts and maltreatment to her at thehands of respondents 3 and 4 and other relations. Keeping in view the persistentdemands her parents arranged some of the articles demanded by them and alsosubsequently paid cashofrs. 10,000. 00for the purpose of separate house where shewas to reside with her husband separately. A list of dowry articles given on 1/10/1989 was duly signed by both the parties (copy annexed ). That inspiteof articles mentioned in the list having been given the lust for money still subsistedand she was again tortured to get more and more. That with the interference ofsome of the relations from both the sides the petitioner and her husband startedliving separately at the premises in question for purchase of which Rs. 10,000. 00were paid by the parents of the petitioner. Sometimes thereafter the husbandagain deserted her and started residing with his parents on the pretext thatpetitioner must bring a Scooter for him. She was not provided with food andclothing besides other necessities of life and she filed a petition for maintenancewhich is pending before the Competent Court. On two occasions i. e. on 1/01/1990 and 1/03/1990 respondents 3 and 4 alongwith other relativescame to the premises in question and started beating the petitioner and took awaymost of the dowry articles with them and with great struggle only a complaintunder Section 107/151 Criminal Procedure Code was registered against respondents 3 and 4 but thatwas not sent to Court. Numerous attempts were made by respondents 3 and 4to dispossess her. Numerous attempts were made by respondents 3 and 4to dispossess her. Respondent No. 3 gave a notice dated 3/08/1992 to thepetitioner claiming that she was the absolute owner of property in questionpurchased on 12/09/1989 and staling that the petitioner was allowedto use the said premises alongwith her husband under the bonafide belief that shewould stay like an obedient licencee but after shifting to the house petitionermisbehaved with respondent No. 3 and tried to harass her and that she was notstaying in the house as an obedient licencee and her licence was revoked and shewas called upon to vacate the house within 15 days of the receipt of the notice orelse respondent No. 3 will be forced to take legal action through appropriate Courtof law. That on 27th November 1992 respondents 3 and 4 with 5/6 unidentifiedpersons tried to dispossess her and with the intervention of neighbours they couldnot succeed and a complaint to that effect was lodged with SHO on 2 7/11/1992. ( 4 ) COMING now to the incident dated 30/08/1993 the petitioner saysthat she had gone to purchase vegetables and on way back went to the house ofher mother and when she came back at about 7. 30, she was surprised to see thatlocks and bolts of her premises had been broken, the bolt of the main door wastempered with hammer and her mother-in-law, grand mother-in-law, husband,sanjay, brother of the husband and his cousin Vinod Kumar were present insidetheir main living room where from almost all the remaining articles and personalbelongings of the petitioner had already been misappropriad. On enquiry fromneighbours she came to know that all this had happened in collusion with the policeand she was informed that 4 police people alongwith aforesaid persons came andbroke open the locks. The petitioner went to her mother who came to the spot andrang up the police on Phone No. 100 and flying squad came at about 8. 45 p. m. andthey enquired from respondents 3 and 4 about the incident as to how they hadbroken the locks and trespassed into the premises and dispossessed the petitioner. Respondents 3 and 4 informed them that it had been done with the order of thedcp and in the meanwhile local police came on the spot and took charge of the caseand flying squad went away. Respondents 3 and 4 informed them that it had been done with the order of thedcp and in the meanwhile local police came on the spot and took charge of the caseand flying squad went away. It has been averred in the petition that local policealongwith Sub Inspector Ishwar Singh behaved in a ridiculous way and they didnot lodge the report of the petitioner nor any action was taken against the culpritswho had illegally trespassed into her premises and misappropriated the belongings of the petitioner. The petitioner claims that she alongwith her parents wentto SHO who also did not help the petitioner and in fact shouted at her and herparents and threatened that they should leave the Police Station otherwise theywill be put behind the bars. On 1/09/1993 a written complaint dated 31/08/1993 was given to the Commissioner of Police. On 4/09/1993, it is claimed, that telegrams were sent to. the Commissioner of Police, DCP (Vigilance), Lt. Governor, Prime; Minister and DCP (North-West), Ashok Viharbut all in vain. Later other complaints, as claimed in the petition, were sent. Onthese averments the writ petition was ultimately filed on 28/09/1991. ( 5 ) RESPONDENTS 3 and 4 have not filed para to para reply controverting theaverments made in the writ petition. Be that as it may, they have not disputed thatthe petitioner has been living in premises in question for last about four yearsalthough it is claimed that she was living as a licence of respondent No. 3. It isclaimed that the possession of the house was delivered to them on 30/08/1993 and since then they are living in that house. As noticed above, respondents3 and 4 have admitted that they have not been living in the house in question forabout four years prior to 30/08/1993 and they were living in some differentpremises. Curiously the respondents have not explained as to how and whodelivered them possession on 30/08/1993. Admittedly, maintenanceapplication under Section 125 Criminal Procedure Code as also complaint before the Dowry Cellagainst the respondents 3 and 4 and other members of their family was pendingbefore 30/08/1993. Admittedly, matrimonial disputes between husbandand wife started in the year 1989 itself. Curiously the respondents have not explained as to how and whodelivered them possession on 30/08/1993. Admittedly, maintenanceapplication under Section 125 Criminal Procedure Code as also complaint before the Dowry Cellagainst the respondents 3 and 4 and other members of their family was pendingbefore 30/08/1993. Admittedly, matrimonial disputes between husbandand wife started in the year 1989 itself. Further, it is not disputed that in the year1990 proceedings under Section 107/151 Criminal Procedure Code were initiated against therespondents; that notice to vacate dated 3/08/1992 was sent to thepetitioner and on 27/11/1992 complaint was made by petitioner with thepolice that respondents 3 and 4 were attempting to dispossess her. The D. D. Entryno. 4a dated 16/12/1992 shows that petitioner alone was living inpremises in question. The respondents have also not disputed the list of articlesdated 1/10/1989 referred to above but have stated that the said articleswere not removed because of paucity of accommodation with them. ( 6 ) WE may make it clear that in this petition we are not concerned with thetitle of property in question. We are also not concerned about the alleged tortureand demand of dowry made by respondents 3 and 4. We are concerned only withthe question whether the petitioner was dispossessed in the manner claimed by heras a result of the action of the police officials and on account of connivance of policewith respondents 3 and 4 and, if so, what relief, at this stage, can begranted to her. ( 7 ) THE main contention of respondents is that the petitioner has filed asuit forpossession which is pending in Civil Court and disputed questions of fact and lawnow form part of the said suit and thus this petition is not maintainable. Respondents 3 and 4have also placed on record a copy of the plaint from which itseems that the suit for possession was filed by the petitioner in February 1994 afterfiling of the present writ petition. The petitioner has explained that to save thelimitation of six months the civil suit was filed after filing of the present petition. ( 8 ) IN order to properly appreciate the objection of the respondents as toavailability of other efficacious remedy to the petitioner, it is necessary to noticethe stand of the police. In brief, the stand of the Police is that on 30/08/1993 at about 5. ( 8 ) IN order to properly appreciate the objection of the respondents as toavailability of other efficacious remedy to the petitioner, it is necessary to noticethe stand of the police. In brief, the stand of the Police is that on 30/08/1993 at about 5. 30 p. m. Mohini Devi, respondent No. 3, came to the Police Stationand lodged a report stating therein that her daughter-in-law Anju Devi, alongwithher parents had forcibly entered her house and she has not allowed Mohini Devito enter in that house which was owned by her. DD entry No. 11-A was recordedon the statement of Respondent No. 3 in which she stated that she had gone tomeet her mother at her residence and in her absence Anju Devi and her parentshave started living in her house in question and that Court case was pendingbetween her son and daughter-in-law and help should be rendered to her. Thesaid DD entry was handed over to Sub Inspector Ishwar Singh who reached thehouse in question alongwith two other police officials mentioned in the said DDentry. When they reached the house in question the lock of the house was openedby Smt. Mohini Devi and she entered the house and started living in that house andthereafter no incident took place. DDentry No57-B dated 30/08/1993 wasrecorded showing return of police officials to the Police Station. ( 9 ) IN respect of the complaint which was alleged to have been made by thepetitioner by ringing up Telephone No. 100 pursuant to which flying squad cameat the house in question at about 8. 45p. m. ,the version of the Police is that at about8. 55 p. m. an information regarding theft in house in question was received whichwas recorded vide D. D. No. 60-B upon which Head Constable Inder Pal reachedthe house inquestion where Mohinidevi was found present and she told thepolice that no theft had taken place in the house and in this regard DD No. 63-B wasrecorded by the police. ( 10 ) IT is not the case of Respondents 3 and 4 that the possession of the housewas delivered to them by the petitioner. The relations between parties werehostile, criminal complaints had been lodged by both the sides, maintenanceapplication of wife and her complaint before dowry cell was pending andadmittedly, since last about 4 years prior to 30/08/1993 respondents 3 and4 were not living in the premises in question. The relations between parties werehostile, criminal complaints had been lodged by both the sides, maintenanceapplication of wife and her complaint before dowry cell was pending andadmittedly, since last about 4 years prior to 30/08/1993 respondents 3 and4 were not living in the premises in question. Under these circumstances, wefail to understand the justification for sending police with respondent No. 3 on herreport to the effect that when she went to the house of her mother, petitioner andher parents entered in the house and started living therein. That was obviouslyabsurd and false statement. Further, when the police goes with her, she is statedto have opened the lock of the house and starts living in the house without anyopposition, let or hinderance from any one, according to the case of all therespondents. If in the absence of Respondent No. 3, the petitioner locked thehouse how Respondent No. 3 had the keys of the lock, is again mysterious. Thepolice intervention does not end here. Let us see what happens next. On thereport of the petitioner and her mother Flying Squad comes and the local policealso reaches soon and returns after a while and records DD entries No. 60-B and63-B, inter-alia, to the effect that Mohini Devi stated that no theft had taken place. A complaint dated 6/09/1993 made by respondent No. 3 to the SHO ofthe Police Station makes an interesting reading and we may reproduce it:- "to,the S. H. O. P. S. Jahangirpuri,delhi-110033. Sub: Complaint against theft of articles and jewellery from 1731 Block-K,jahangirpuri, Delhi, by Smt. Kapoori Devi and her daughter Smt. Anjudevi R/o K Block, Jahangirpur,delhi. Sir,the Applicant begs to submit as under:-1. That the applicant is the owner and in possession of the above saidpremises No. 1731 which was got vacated by Smt. Kapoori Devi andher daughter Smt. Anju Devi and the following articles and cash,jewellery were found missing while taking the possession of the housein question:-Rs. 8,000. 00 Cash, 5 tola jewellery, articles, including valuable clothes,utencils etc. etc. While vacating the said premises which costsrs. 40,000. 00in total which has been stolen away by the said Kapoorideviand her daughter Anju Devi while taking the dowry goods whichwere presented in the marriage of the son of the Applicant. 2. 8,000. 00 Cash, 5 tola jewellery, articles, including valuable clothes,utencils etc. etc. While vacating the said premises which costsrs. 40,000. 00in total which has been stolen away by the said Kapoorideviand her daughter Anju Devi while taking the dowry goods whichwere presented in the marriage of the son of the Applicant. 2. That there are cases pending in Dowry Cell as well as in the Court oflaw against the applicant and as per law she is at fault to take away thepersonal belongings including cash and jewellery of the applicantwhile all the dowry articles were returned to her by the applicant/complainant. It is,therefore, most respectfully prayed that necessary orders forreturning back the goods and articles including jewellery bepassed infavour of the applicant/complainant and stern action be taken against the said Smt. Kapoori devi and her daughter Smt. Anju Devi andenquiry be made in the matter immediately and the applicant be alsosaved from her life and property at the hands of said Smt. Kapooridevi who has threatened to take possession of the property inquestion again. Thanking you and hoping you for favourable consideration. Delhidated: 6. 9. 93. Applicant/ Complainantsd/- (Smt. Mohini Devi)1731, K-Block,jahangirpuri,delhi-33. "paragraph No. 1 of the aforesaid complaint as originally typed was asunder: "that the applicant is the owner and in possession of the above saidpremises No. l731 which was got vacated by Smt. Kapoori Devi and herdaughter Smt. Anju Devi by order of the D. C. P. ,delhi and the followingarticles and cash, jewellery were found missing while taking the possessionof the house in question. " ( 11 ) THE words "by order of the DCP, Delhi" were later deleted with pen. Thedeletion of these words presents an interesting picture, particularly, when seen inthe light of what transpired on 30/08/1993 though, at this stage, we arenot suggesting which officials or officers may be involved in the episode, but theinvolvement of police cannot be doubted. ( 12 ) THE facts noticed above speak for themselves as to the role played by thepolice in the entire episode of putting respondents 3 and 4 into possession. Thefacts and circumstances of the case clearly demonstrate, without any shadow ofdoubt, that it is with the active connivance of the Police that respondents 3 and4 were inducted into the premises. Which particular police officials/officers wereinvolved in this sordid affair will have to be determined by directing holding of anenquiry into the matter. Thefacts and circumstances of the case clearly demonstrate, without any shadow ofdoubt, that it is with the active connivance of the Police that respondents 3 and4 were inducted into the premises. Which particular police officials/officers wereinvolved in this sordid affair will have to be determined by directing holding of anenquiry into the matter. ( 13 ) IN the light of the aforesaid facts the Court is not helpless in coming tothe aid of the petitioner simply because the suit filed by her for possession ispending in the Civil Court. The suit was filed by the petitioner during thependency of the writ petition since limitation period of six months was expiringand if not filed suit would have become time barred. It is only in exceptional casesand sparingly this Court would direct delivery of possession while exercisingextraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution but we cannotaccept the argument that this Court has no such power. When the facts are soglaring as in the present case the Court is not powerless and has rather obligationand duty to direct restoration of possession. The availability of other efficaciousremedy knowing well that the said remedy i. e. suit will take considerable timecannot always be used as a weapon of defence to deny relief to the aggrievedperson. It is true that generally power under Article 226 would not be used as asubstitute for the enforcement of rights and obligations which can be enforcedefficaciously through the ordinary process of courts, civil and criminal but there isno bar in exercise of that power and where and when it is required to beexercisedwould depend upon the facts and circumstances of each case. The present case isnot of two individuals, one having dispossessed the other, but is a case wherea helpless lady has been thrown out of the house where,she was living for aboutfour years, in whatsoever capacity, as a result of collusion and connivance of thepolice, In suchcircumstances, this Court, to do complete justice between theparties, has wide and ample powers to pass appropriate orders including ordersfor restoration of possession. On the facts like the present it is the duty of the Courtto come to the aid of person who is oppressed and is indisadvantageous positionand, therefore, it is necessary to make innovations and forge new tools whenatrocities are committed by those who are required to enforce the rule of law. On the facts like the present it is the duty of the Courtto come to the aid of person who is oppressed and is indisadvantageous positionand, therefore, it is necessary to make innovations and forge new tools whenatrocities are committed by those who are required to enforce the rule of law. Thealleged offender cannot be permitted to take advantage of delay injustice deliverysystem. The contention that they may have prima facie committed the offence oftrespass for the purpose of registration of FIR, which maybe registered, and thatthe law will have its own course after registration of the FIR and at this stage noorders for delivery of possession can be passed, cannot be accepted on the peculiarfacts of this case. Of course, the criminal law will have its own course. Of course,the suit would also be decided on its own merits and this order will not prejudiceparties in those proceedings but all this does not persuade us to deny the relief ofputting the petitioner back into possession. All situations are not alike. Whatrelief deserves to be given in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226 cannotbe placed in a rigid mould. It cannot be put in a straight jacket. The relief is tobe moulded as the facts and circumstances of the case and cause of justice maydemand. We are thus not persuaded to deny to the petitioner the relief of being putback in possession of the premises in which she has been living for nearly fouryears prior to 30/08/1993, the years during which her husband and mother-in-law were admittedly living in separate premises. We are not concerned in thiscase with the question of title of the property but are concerned with the role ofthe police. Police has no right to take law into their own hands. On the facts andcircumstances noticed hereinbefore, it is evident that the police has taken law intotheir own hands and dispossessed the petitioner incomplcte. disregardofruleoflaw. The action of the police has to be just, reasonable and fair. The impugnedaction of the police shows complete lack of commitment to the society and rule oflaw. Within the parameters of law, the police has to come to the aid of needy,helpless and the victims. disregardofruleoflaw. The action of the police has to be just, reasonable and fair. The impugnedaction of the police shows complete lack of commitment to the society and rule oflaw. Within the parameters of law, the police has to come to the aid of needy,helpless and the victims. Some bad elements in the Police force bring disrepute tothe entire force and good officials and officers, which we hope would be in largenumber, may also have to suffer sometimes because of few bad elements in theservice. The time has indeed come for the Commissioner of Police to take sternaction against the erring officers/individuals. Such officials have to be madeaccountable for undue in erference in the life and liberty of the citizens. We hopethat the Government and the Commissioner of Police would think of ways andmeans of restoring a high degree of confidence of society in police as such type ofinterference is increasingly coming to the notice of the Court. Some officers inpolice force are required to be told that the aggrieved person cannot be treatedthe way the petitioner was treated. The facts are so glaring that it would shock theconscience of anyone. ( 14 ) IN view of the aforesaid. we direct restoration of status quo ante anddirect respondents 1 and 2 to put the petitioner back in possession of property inquestion within a week. The resistance, if any, by respondents 3 and 4 or any otherperson in this regard shall be strictly dealt with by the police in accordance withlaw. ( 15 ) WE further direct the Commissioner of Police to forthwith nominate anofficer, not below the rank of Additional Commissioner of Police, to hold anenquiry to identify the erring police officers/officials in this matter. The reportshall be submitted to this court on or before 4/07/1994. On receipt of thatreport further directions in the matter including the directions for registration offirst Information Report will be made. We again clarify that the observations madeby us in this order will have no effect on any other litigation, civil or criminal, whichmay be pending or which may ensue hereinafter. List the matter for further proceedings on 11/07/1994. Appeal allowed.