Research › Search › Judgment

Delhi High Court · body

2006 DIGILAW 1137 (DEL)

K. D. MATHPAL v. STATE (N. C. T. ) OF DELHI

2006-07-12

S.N.AGGARWAL

body2006
S. N. AGGARWAL, J. ( 1 ) THIS writ petition (Crl.) has been filed by the petitioner for directions to respondent Nos. 2 and 4 to and register FIR against respondent Nos. 5 and 6 forthe commission of cognizable and non-bailable offence under appropriate provisions of the Indian Penal Code inter alia being under Sections 338/452, IPC. ( 2 ) THE brief facts of the case giving rise to this petition are as follows: the petitioner had purchased a plot of land measuring 150 sq. yds. bearing no. 113-A, New Ashok Nagar, Shahdara, Delhi on 19. 8. 1986. This purchase was made by him on the basis of General Power of Attorney, Agreement to Sell and other related documents. The construction over this plot was done around the year 1990. The aforesaid property of the petitioner has ground floor and first floor. ( 3 ) THE petitioner has two sons. Respondent No. 5 is his younger son. Respondent No. 6 is the wife of respondent No. 5 and daughter-in-law of the petitioner. The respondent No. 4 retired from Army Service on 1. 10. 1998 and after his retirement, he along with his wife and children started residing in a portion of the ground floor of the aforementioned property allegedly belonging to his father (petitioner herein ). The elder son of the petitioner who is not a party to the present writ petition is residing on the first floor of the said property. The petitioner is also residing in a portion of the ground floor of his property in question. ( 4 ) THE grievance of the petitioner in the present writ petition is that his son and daughter-in-law being respondent Nos. 5 and 6 herein are trespassers and they have no legal right to remain in possession of his property. Further grievance of the petitioner is that respondent Nos. 5 and 6 are harassing him every day and have also physically assaulted him on several occasions. The Counsel for the petitioner has read out the contents of paras 8 and 9 of the writ petition which according to him deals with the cause of action for filing of the present writ petition. 5 and 6 are harassing him every day and have also physically assaulted him on several occasions. The Counsel for the petitioner has read out the contents of paras 8 and 9 of the writ petition which according to him deals with the cause of action for filing of the present writ petition. It is contended that the petitioner is an old person of 80 years of age and a portion of his property which he acquired by dint of hard work has been illegally occupied by his son and daughter-in-law (respondent Nos. 5 and 6) and as they are harassing him every day, a criminal case of trespass be registered against them. ( 5 ) STATUS report has been filed on behalf of respondent Nos. 1 to 4 in response to the notice of present writ petition served upon them. Respondent Nos. 5 and 6 have also filed their reply by way of counter-affidavit to which rejoinder has also been filed. The pleadings of the parties as well as the status report have been perused by me. A perusal of the pleadings of the parties would reveal that there are allegations and counter-allegations of harassment by the parties against each other. The petitioner who is father of respondent No. 5 alleges harassment against him whereas respondent No. 5 says that it is the petitioner who is causing harassment to him and is not permitting him to reside peacefully. The status report filed on behalf of respondent Nos. 1 to 4 reveals that the petitioner and respondent Nos. 5 and 6 used to quarrel with each other over trivial matters as the petitioner wanted that his son and daughter-in-law should vacate his house whereas respondent Nos. 5 and 6 were not wiling to vacate the premises in their possession. It is further mentioned in the status report of respondent Nos. 1 to 4 that the petitioner was advised that in case he wants to get his house vacated, he can take remedy in the Civil Court. It is further mentioned in the status report that the Beat Staff and the Division Officer of the concerned Police Station have been directed to keep a close watch in the area to ensure that the petitioner is not harassed by his son and daughter-in-law. It is submitted by the Counsel for respondent Nos. It is further mentioned in the status report that the Beat Staff and the Division Officer of the concerned Police Station have been directed to keep a close watch in the area to ensure that the petitioner is not harassed by his son and daughter-in-law. It is submitted by the Counsel for respondent Nos. 1 to 4 that no cognizable offence is made out against respondent Nos. 5 and 6 either on the basis of the facts alleged in the petition or facts contained in the complaints received from the petitioner in the police Station. ( 6 ) AFTER hearing the Counsel for the parties and upon perusal of the record of this case, I have reached to a conclusion that the dispute between the petitioner and respondent Nos. 5 and 6 is of civil nature and appropriate remedy for the petitioner is to approach a Civil Court for vacation of his house by respondent Nos. 5 and 6 in case they are trespassers in his property. ( 7 ) WITH These observations, the present writ petition is disposed of. Writ Petition disposed of.