Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2000 DIGILAW 1267 (PNJ)

Luxmi Devi v. State Of Haryana

2000-10-19

V.M.JAIN

body2000
Judgment V.M.Jain, J. 1. This is a petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. filed by the petitioner seeking a direction to official respondents to register an FIR against the private respondents under Sections 147, 148, 149, 323, 452, 456, 458 and 506 IPC. 2. In the petition it was alleged that respondent No. 6 through her attorney had sold a house to one Lalit Vikram for Rs. 35,000/- vide sale deed dated 23.3.1994 and possession of the house was also handed over by Smt. Shanti Devi to Lalit Vikram on the same day. It was alleged that Smt. Shanti Devi had appointed one Sanjay Bhasin as her attorney vide registered power of attorney dated 11.3.1994. It was alleged that subsequently on 19.1.2000, said Lalit Vikram, who had purchased the house from Shanti Devi, had sold the said house for Rs. 95,000/- vide registered sale deed dated 19.1.2000 to Vinay Verma, son of the petitioner and possession of the said house was also handed over by Lalit Vikram to the family of the petitioner on the same day. It was alleged that after getting the possession, the petitioner and her family started residing therein. It was alleged that on 31.1.2000, respondent No. 4 (S.H.O.) summoned the husband of the petitioner and her son and nephew to the Police Station and they were illegally detained in the Police Station. It was alleged that in the meanwhile respondents 5 to 10 alongwith two unidentified persons entered the house of the petitioner at about 8.30 p.m., when the petitioner and her minor children were present at the house and those persons threatened the petitioner by showing knives and forcibly broke the locks of the said house and also slapped the petitioner. It was alleged that later on petitioner came to know that respondent No. 4 had registered FIR No. 31 dated 31.1.2000 under Sections 452, 448, 543, 323, 511, 506, 142, 149 IPC against the petitioner and her family members. It was alleged that after the above occurrence, the petitioner approached respondent No. 4 (S.H.O.) for registration of the FIR against the culprits but the S.H.O. refused to do so. It was alleged that the SHO had already registered a false FIR at the instance of respondent No. 5 Jai Bhagwan against the petitioner and her family members. It was alleged that after the above occurrence, the petitioner approached respondent No. 4 (S.H.O.) for registration of the FIR against the culprits but the S.H.O. refused to do so. It was alleged that the SHO had already registered a false FIR at the instance of respondent No. 5 Jai Bhagwan against the petitioner and her family members. It was alleged subsequently petitioner sent registered letters dated 19.2.2000 to various police officers for taking action against the culprits, but no action was taken and thereafter the petitioner sent reminder dated 23.3.2000, but still no action has been taken. It was alleged that up till now, no action has been taken by the police against respondents 5 to 10. 3. In the written reply filed by Phool Singh, S.H.O. on behalf of official respondents, it was alleged that the possession of the house in question was never transferred to the petitioner side, as alleged. It was alleged that in fact Shanti Devi had purchased the said house in the year 1986 and thereafter she and other family members had raised construction thereon and they were residing in the said house and had also obtained electric connection from the Haryana State Electricity Board in the year 1998. It was alleged that under these circumstances, there was no question of respondents 5 to 10 having trespassed into the house of the petitioner. It was alleged that in fact the petitioner had filed the present petition as a counter-blast to the FIR lodged by Jai Bhagwan, husband of Smt. Shanti Devi on 31.1.2000 against the petitioner side. It was further alleged that Shanti Devi had already filed a civil suit against the petitioner side and the trial Court had found that Smt. Shanti Devi was in possession of the house in question and on the other hand, the petitioner side was restrained from dispossessing said Smt. Shanti Devi, from the house in question, vide order dated 14.6.2000. It was alleged that present petitioner was residing in adjoining house and the husband of the petitioner was an employee in the Municipal Committee and it was alleged that on 13.3.1994. It was alleged that present petitioner was residing in adjoining house and the husband of the petitioner was an employee in the Municipal Committee and it was alleged that on 13.3.1994. Lalit Vikram, who was closely related to Smt. Shanti Devi took Smt. Shanti Devi to the Tehsil office on the pretext of applying for old age pension and fraudulently obtained General Power of Attorney in favour of his friend Sanjay Bhasin and subsequently on 23.3.1994, Lalit Vikram got a sale deed executed in his name from Sanjay Bhasin. It was alleged that during investigation, Sanjay Bhasin denied having any acquaintance with Smt. Shanti Devi and stated that he had not taken any sale consideration from Lalit Vikram. It was further alleged that subsequently Lalit Vikram executed sale deed in respect of the said house in favour of Vinay Verma, son of the petitioner Smt. Luxmi Devi and described the property as kacha kotha, even though there was a pucca construction fitted with electric connection on the plot in question. It was alleged that the present petitioner and her family members alongwith Lalit Vikram hatched a criminal conspiracy to grab the house of Smt. Shanti Devi and made efforts to take forcible possession of the house, but they could not succeed due to timely intervention of the police and FIR No. 31 was registered against the petitioner and her family members in this regard. It was alleged that the allegations made in the petition were totally false and that the police was investigating the case against the petitioner and her family members in accordance with law, while no cognizable offence was made out on the complaint lodged by the complainant as the allegations were found to be false. 4. I have heard the learned Counsel for the parties and have gone through the record carefully. 5. The learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted before me that in view of the law laid down by their Lordships of the Supreme Court in the case reported as AIR 1992 SC 604, State of Haryana and others v. Chaudhary Bhajan Lal and others, the police was bound to register an FIR on the complaint made by the petitioner and to investigate the same in accordance with law. Learned Counsel appearing for the State submitted before me that in view of the law laid down by their Lordships of the Supreme Court, in the subsequent authority reported as 1997 Supreme Court Cases (Criminal) 303, All India Institute of Medical Sciences Employees Union (Regd.) v. Union of India, the petitioner would be competent to file a criminal complaint before the Magistrate and that without availing the said procedure, the petitioner was not entitled to approach the High Court by filing the petition and seeking direction to conduct investigation. 6. After hearing the learned Counsel for the parties and after pursuing the record, in my opinion, no case is made out for interfering in the present petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. As referred to above, an FIR had already been registered against the petitioner and her family members on 31.1.2000, for having attempted to take forcible possession of the house in question from the possession of Smt. Shanti Devi and her husband Jai Bhagwan. After registration of the said FIR against the petitioner and her family members, the petitioner got wiser and sent registered letter/complaint to the various police officers dated 19.2.2000 for the registration of an FIR against the private respondents Jai Bhagwan and Smt. Shanti Devi etc. to the effect that they had forcibly dispossessed her and her family members from the house in question. The matter was enquired into by the police and it was found that the version of the present petitioner was false. During the intervening period the matter had gone to the civil Court. In the civil Court filed by Smt. Shanti Devi against Surinder Verma and others (date of institution of suit being 2.2.2000), the Civil Judge (Junior Division), Ambala, vide order dated 14.6.2000 (copy Annexure R-4), had restrained defendants Surinder Verma etc. (close relatives of the petitioner) from dispossessing the petitioner Smt. Shanti Devi from the house in question during the pendency of the suit except in due course of law, prima facie holding that the plaintiff Smt. Shanti Devi was in possession of the house in question. Under these circumstances, prima facie, there is nothing to show that the present petitioner side was in possession of the house in question or that they were dispossessed by the private respondents. Under these circumstances, prima facie, there is nothing to show that the present petitioner side was in possession of the house in question or that they were dispossessed by the private respondents. The complaint lodged by the petitioner was enquired into by the police and it was found that the allegations made by the present petitioner were false and as such no FIR was registered and complaint made by the petitioner was ordered to be filled. 7. In 1997 Supreme Court Cases (Crl.) 303 (supra), it was held by their Lordships of the Supreme Court that when the information is laid with the police but no action in that behalf is taken, the complainant is given power under Section 190 read with Section 200 Cr.P.C. to lay the complaint before the Magistrate having jurisdiction to take cognizance of the offence and the Magistrate is required to enquire into the complaint as provided in Chapter XV of the Code. It was further held in the said authority, that without availing the said procedure, the petitioner was not entitled to approach the High Court by filing a petition and seeking a direction to conduct an investigation by the CBI. In the present case, an FIR had already been registered by the police on 31.1.2000 against the petitioner and her other family members for having trespassed into the house in question, at the instance of respondent No. 5 Jai Bhagwan. Under these circumstances, on receipt of the complaint dated 19.2.2000 from the present petitioner, the police was not required to register an FIR at the instance of the present petitioner Smt. Luxmi Devi against Jai Bhagwan and others, especially when during investigation, it has come to the notice of the police that Smt. Luxmi Devi and her other family members had tried to trespass into the house which was in possession of Jai Bhagwan and Smt. Shanti Devi etc. Under these circumstances, in my opinion, the law laid down by their Lordships of the Supreme Court, in the case reported as AIR 1992 SC 604 (supra) would have no application to the facts of the present case and it could not be said that on receipt of complaint dated 19.2.2000 from petitioner, the police was bound to register an FIR especially when an FIR had already been registered against the petitioner side. 8. 8. For the reasons recorded above, finding no merit on the present petition the same is dismissed. However, the petitioner, if so advised, would be at liberty to file a criminal complaint before the Magistrate, having jurisdiction to take cognizance of the offence, who shall decide the same in accordance with law.