Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2000 DIGILAW 568 (PNJ)

Atma Ram Patial v. State Of Punjab

2000-05-25

AMAR DUTT

body2000
Judgment Amar Dutt, J. 1. Petitioner No. 1 - Atma Ram Patial is the landlord of House No. 1003. Urban Estate, Phase II, Jalandhar, which according to him was rented out for a short period of six months to complainant Vinod Khanna. The relations between the landlord and the tenant turned soar and on 23.4.1998 the complainant is alleged to have filed a civil suit for permanent injunction against the landlord for restraining him from dispossessing the complainant from the premises rented out to him. In this suit on 23.7.1998, an interim order had been confirmed directing the parties to maintain status quo regarding the possession till the final disposal of the suit. In the suit, the complainant had moved an application presumably under Order 39 Rule 2-A of the Civil Procedure Code for initiating contempt proceedings against the landlord in which on 22.9.1999 the petitioner filed a reply asserting that the house had been vacated and the wife and son of the complainant had given a writing to this effect. A photocopy of the said writing was stated to be attached with the reply but on behalf of the complainant it is asserted that no such photocopy was available on the record and till today the petitioners have neither made available the alleged photocopy nor has the original been produced for scrutiny of the Court. According to the complainant, the petitioner-landlord and members of his family have broken the lock of the house and removed various articles belonging to the complainant, which were lying therein. A report, to this effect was registered in Police Station Sadar, Jalandhar on 30.12.1999. It is this report which had occasioned the filing of an application under Section 438, Cr.P.C. before the Sessions Judge and the rejection of that application qua petitioners Atma Ram Patial and Parveen Patial has given rise to the present petition. 2. Since it was asserted before me that the possession of the premises in dispute had already been handed over to the complainant and the F.I.R. had been registered with a mala fide intention of harassing the petitioners, I had, while issuing notice, directed that the petitioners in the event of their arrest be admitted to interim bail. 3. I have heard Shri Ishwar Lal, Advocate appearing for the petitioners, Advocate for the Sidhu, Assistant Advocate General, Punjab and Shri H.K. Arora, complainant. 3. I have heard Shri Ishwar Lal, Advocate appearing for the petitioners, Advocate for the Sidhu, Assistant Advocate General, Punjab and Shri H.K. Arora, complainant. On behalf of the State, the continuity of the interim order has been opposed on the ground that the petitioners have not made available to the investigating agency the original of the writing which according to them was executed by Sunita Khanna and Amit Khanna in proof of the complainants family having vacated the rented premises voluntarily before the police in order to enable it to verify the assertion made by the complainant that no such document had been executed by his wife or son. It has also been opposed on the ground that certain articles which were lying inside the house have been removed by the petitioners and to find out where these and the original writing is kept, the custodial interrogation of the petitioners would be required. 4. Having given my thoughtful consideration to the submissions made by the counsel for the parties, I feel that though it is unfortunate that civil litigation should provide the genesis of a criminal action, yet the mere fact that the origin of the disputes can be traced back to a desire of the landlord to recover possession would not by itself disentitle the investigating agency from investigating into the correctness of the allegations which prima facie appears to disclose the commission of a criminal offence. In the present case, it would have been a different matter if the original documents on the basis of which the landlord is claiming to have regained possession had been made available to the investigating agency as also if the whereabouts of the articles which are alleged to have been kept in the house had already been pin-pointed but in a case like the present one, where a cloud is cast on both aspects of this case, it would not be proper for the Court to stand in the way to prevent custodial interrogation, if such interrogation is required by the investigating agency. 5. In this view of the matter, taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case, I feel that it would not be proper for this Court to extend the concession of anticipatory bail to the petitioners. The petition is, accordingly dismissed. Petition dismissed.