KRISHNA Vs. LALA RAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C has been preferred by the petitioner for quashing of the order dated 12th August 2010 passed by learned ASJ dismissing the revision of the petitioner against the order of SDM dated 11th September 2009. One Lala Ram Gupta was forcibly dispossessed from the property situated at D-60, Prem Vihar, Karawal Nagar, Delhi on 29th November 2000 by Mr. K.G. Tyagi, SHO Police Station Gokul Puri and other police officials. He made a complaint about his forcible dispossession to various authorities naming all the police officers who were involved in his forcible dispossession. A perusal of record shows that he made complaint to commissioner of police, Prime Minister, National Human Rights Commission and to the SDM. In all his complaints, he had pleaded that he had purchased this property for a sum of Rs.2,40,000/- from one Dharamvir Singh on 8th May, 2000 and he was put in possession of the property by Mr. D.V. Singh and he was living in this property with his family member till he was dispossessed. On 29th November 2000 at about 10/11 am Mr. K.G. Tyagi SHO Police Station Gokul Puri, ASI Rohtash, one official of police, Mr. V.S. Rana, Mr. Rajbir Singh Rana, Rajender Singh, a property dealer, Mrs. Krishna Devi and her husband Om Prakash came to the house. The SHO and ASI Rohtas started beating him in his house and went on beating till he fell down on the ground. Then SHO caught hold of him from his collar and pulled him upto his vehicle and he forcibly thrust him into it. He was taken to police station and he was beaten at the police station and kept there for whole night and next morning he was taken to his house in the same government vehicle. The police humiliated his wife showing insulting behaviour and took all his belongings out from his house and he and his family members were asked to run away and if they were seen near the house again, they would be shot dead. He submitted that since 29th November 2000, his house was occupied by ASI and KG Tyagi and their goons. In his complaints to various authorities he pleaded for justice and mercy. On his complaint under Section 145 Cr.P.C made to SDM, Seelampur, SDM called a report of the police. The police report would show that a report was filed at the police station by one Dharamvir and Smt. Krishna Devi and in pursuant of that DD report; police did visit the premises in question on 29th November 2000 and enquired about the documents of ownership of the said plot. It is submitted that Lala Ram was not able to produce ownership document whereas complainant Hari Om produced the documents of the above plot and an order dated 9th November 2000 passed by Shri B.S. Chumbak, Civil Judge, Tis Hazari Courts. These documents were seized through a memo by the SI and a case under Section 432, 448 IPC was registered against Lala Ram on the basis of statement of Hari Om.

(2.) IT is apparent that this case of trespass could not have been registered against Lala Ram unless Lala Ram was in possession of the property. The report of police to the SDM, therefore, confirmed that Lala Ram was in physical possession. The SHO in his report further stated that Dharamvir Singh did state that he had executed an agreement to sell in favour of Lala Ram in May, 2000 but he stated that the date of executing GPA was 30th June, 2000 and Lala Ram remained absent on the date of agreement, therefore, he cancelled the agreement on 30th June, 2000. Dharamvir Singh did not produce document of cancellation of agreement and took time to produce cancelled documents. In fact, this report of police should have been sufficient for the SDM to pass the impugned order of re-putting Lala Ram in re-possession. However, perusal of record would show that the SDM did not act upon the application under Section 145 Cr.P.C made by Lala Ram. Lala Ram had been alleging that he was owner of plot no.D-60, Hari Ram, the complainant had a decree in respect of a different plot altogether i.e. J-87.

(3.) IT is submitted by the counsel for the petitioners that learned SDM ignored all other evidence like the suit filed by the petitioners and decree passed by Shri B.S. Chumbak, learned Civil Judge in favour of petitioner.