Full Text
Translation output
)
1$- HIGH COURT OF DELHI w.P. (cRL.) 1037 t201r
DRSINGH&ANR.
Through ..... Petitioners Ivtu.R. K. Saini with Mr. sitab Ali
Chaudhary, Adv.
1$- HIGH COURT OF DELHI w.P. (cRL.) 1037 t201r
DRSINGH&ANR.
Through ..... Petitioners Ivtu.R. K. Saini with Mr. sitab Ali
Chaudhary, Adv.
VERSUS
STATE N.C.T. OF DELHI & ORS. ..... Respondent
Through IVIr. Saleem Ahmed, Addl Standing Counsel with Inspector Ashok Kumar, PS BharatNagar
Mr. Shiv Charan Garg and Mr. Imran Khan for Respondent no. 4
Mr. Shayam Moorjani, Adv. for R-5.
Through IVIr. Saleem Ahmed, Addl Standing Counsel with Inspector Ashok Kumar, PS BharatNagar
Mr. Shiv Charan Garg and Mr. Imran Khan for Respondent no. 4
Mr. Shayam Moorjani, Adv. for R-5.
CORAM:
IION'BLE MS. JUSTICE MUKTA GUPTA
,h 02.08.2011 By this petition, the Petitiofiers, who are 60 years of age seek a mandamus directing Respondent nos. 2 and 3 i.e. DCP (NW) and SHO, P. S. BharatNagar to ensure that RespondentNos. 4, 6 and 7 leave their house immediately and do not forcibly enter it again and harass and torture the
Petitioners and also ensure safety of their lives and limbs. They also seek a mandamus directing Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 to take immediate and appropriate action on their complaints against Respondent Nos. 4, 6 and7.
Briefly the case as set out in the petition is that the Petitioners were living in flat No.14-B, Pocket-A, MIG DDA Flats, Ashok Vihar-III after
WP(Crl.) No.i037/201I Page I of 3 2011:DHC:18885 vacating the govemment accommodation at Tilak Marg on the retirement of
Petitioner No.l. This flat was purchased by Petitioner No.l in 1977 out of his personal savings. On22"d January, 2011, Respondent No.4 i.e. the Petitioners' daughter-in-law had a quarel with them and she used abusive language, threatened to commit suicide and implicate the family of the Petitioners. It is alleged that under such circumstances, the Petitioners were conshained to ask their son i.e. Respondent No.5 to make €rrangement for his separate living and vacate their house at the earliest. He agreed to do so and pursuant thereto
Respondent Nos. 4 and 5 shifted to a rented accommodation on 9th February, 20LL. It is further alleged that on 15ft July, 20II while Petitioner No.l was admitted in Escorts Heart Institute and Research Centre, Delhi and Petitioner
No.2 was attending him, they received a message at about 8.00 PM from the employee of one of the neighbours that lights and fans inside the house were on and some persons were inside. Later on they came to know that Respondent
No.4 and her companions had broken open the door and forcibly entered into the properly.
These allegations of hespass are being refuted by leamed counsel for
Respondent No.4. He further states that Respondent Nos. 6 and 7 are not residing at the premises.
Be that as it may, on consideration of facts of the case, since the petition
WP(Crl.) No.I037/201I t involves adjudication of disputed questions of facts, the only relief that can be granted to the Petitioner at this stage is that the Petitioners should be permitted to live peacefully in their house. However, no directions can be given by this
Court in the present petition directing Respondent No.4 to leave the premises since she is their daughter-in-1aw. In case the Petitioners have any grievance against Respondent No.4 and that the Respondent No.4 is not entitled to live in the house, they arc at liberty to take action in accordance with law.
The SHO, P.S. Bharat Nagar, has filed a status report in which it has been stated that no case of trespass was found to have been committed by
Respondent No.4. Thus, in case the SHO, P.S. Bharat Nagar does not register an FIR on the complaints, the Petitioners would be at libefty to approach the learned Metropolitan Magistrate by filing a complaint under Section 200 read with Section 156 Cr.P.C. in view of the decision of the Supreme Court in
Gangadhar Janardan Mhatre v. State of Maharashtra and others, (2004) 7
SCC 768.
No further orders are required to be passed in the present petition. The
Petition stands disposed of. Order dasti. refu?L
MUKTA GUPTA. J AUGUST 02,20lLl,NR' WP(Crl.) No.I037/201I
,h 02.08.2011 By this petition, the Petitiofiers, who are 60 years of age seek a mandamus directing Respondent nos. 2 and 3 i.e. DCP (NW) and SHO, P. S. BharatNagar to ensure that RespondentNos. 4, 6 and 7 leave their house immediately and do not forcibly enter it again and harass and torture the
Petitioners and also ensure safety of their lives and limbs. They also seek a mandamus directing Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 to take immediate and appropriate action on their complaints against Respondent Nos. 4, 6 and7.
Briefly the case as set out in the petition is that the Petitioners were living in flat No.14-B, Pocket-A, MIG DDA Flats, Ashok Vihar-III after
WP(Crl.) No.i037/201I Page I of 3 2011:DHC:18885 vacating the govemment accommodation at Tilak Marg on the retirement of
Petitioner No.l. This flat was purchased by Petitioner No.l in 1977 out of his personal savings. On22"d January, 2011, Respondent No.4 i.e. the Petitioners' daughter-in-law had a quarel with them and she used abusive language, threatened to commit suicide and implicate the family of the Petitioners. It is alleged that under such circumstances, the Petitioners were conshained to ask their son i.e. Respondent No.5 to make €rrangement for his separate living and vacate their house at the earliest. He agreed to do so and pursuant thereto
Respondent Nos. 4 and 5 shifted to a rented accommodation on 9th February, 20LL. It is further alleged that on 15ft July, 20II while Petitioner No.l was admitted in Escorts Heart Institute and Research Centre, Delhi and Petitioner
No.2 was attending him, they received a message at about 8.00 PM from the employee of one of the neighbours that lights and fans inside the house were on and some persons were inside. Later on they came to know that Respondent
No.4 and her companions had broken open the door and forcibly entered into the properly.
These allegations of hespass are being refuted by leamed counsel for
Respondent No.4. He further states that Respondent Nos. 6 and 7 are not residing at the premises.
Be that as it may, on consideration of facts of the case, since the petition
WP(Crl.) No.I037/201I t involves adjudication of disputed questions of facts, the only relief that can be granted to the Petitioner at this stage is that the Petitioners should be permitted to live peacefully in their house. However, no directions can be given by this
Court in the present petition directing Respondent No.4 to leave the premises since she is their daughter-in-1aw. In case the Petitioners have any grievance against Respondent No.4 and that the Respondent No.4 is not entitled to live in the house, they arc at liberty to take action in accordance with law.
The SHO, P.S. Bharat Nagar, has filed a status report in which it has been stated that no case of trespass was found to have been committed by
Respondent No.4. Thus, in case the SHO, P.S. Bharat Nagar does not register an FIR on the complaints, the Petitioners would be at libefty to approach the learned Metropolitan Magistrate by filing a complaint under Section 200 read with Section 156 Cr.P.C. in view of the decision of the Supreme Court in
Gangadhar Janardan Mhatre v. State of Maharashtra and others, (2004) 7
SCC 768.
No further orders are required to be passed in the present petition. The
Petition stands disposed of. Order dasti. refu?L
MUKTA GUPTA. J AUGUST 02,20lLl,NR' WP(Crl.) No.I037/201I
JUDGMENT