ASHOK KUMAR Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITIONER filed a complaint under Section 200 Cr.P.C. in the court of Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Delhi (ACMM) praying therein that the accused persons, namely, Chameli Devi, Ram Chander, Sandeep, Pradeep and Deepak be summoned and punished for the offences under Sections 341/506/34 IPC. It may be noted here that Chameli Devi is real sister of the petitioner; whereas Ram Chander is husband and Sandeep, Pradeep and Deepak are sons of Chameli Devi.

(2.) IT was alleged in the complaint that the mother of petitioner No. 1 was owner of a house bearing No. 1319, Gali No. 118, Talab Road, Shanti Nagar, Tri Nagar, Delhi. She died on 14th December, 1978. After her death, petitioner became exclusive owner of the aforesaid property by virtue of a Will dated 10th January, 1978 left behind by her. Petitioner shifted at the first floor of the said property along with his father after the death of his mother. On the request of Chameli Devi, he allowed her to live in one room at the ground floor purely on license basis. Kitchen and toilet at the ground floor was also in their use and occupation. Later on, at the request of Chameli Devi and her husband, he permitted them to occupy two more rooms and one shop at the ground floor. Chameli Devi and her husband assured the petitioner that once they would start earning sufficient money from their business and their two daughters are married, they will vacate the ground floor and shift to some other place. In spite of the fact that husband of Chameli Devi started earning well and his two daughters got married, property was not vacated. In the year 1992, petitioner requested his sister to vacate the ground floor but to no effect, consequently, petitioner terminated the license by serving a legal notice dated 19th August, 1992. Since ground floor was not vacated in spite of the service of legal notice, petitioner filed a suit for recovery of possession and damages against them. Thereafter, behaviour of Chameli Devi, her husband and sons (hereinafter referred to as "accused") became hostile and they started creating nuisance thereby forcing the petitioner to shift out from the first floor of the property sometime in the year 1993. However, possession of the first floor remained with the petitioner under his lock and key.

(3.) DESPITE undertaking given in the court that they will not prevent access of the petitioner to the first floor, on 2nd May, CRL. M.C. 2199/2010 Page 3 of 8 2007 at about 1:40 PM when the petitioner along with his wife visited the suit property, accused forcibly and wrongfully stopped them at the main entrance of the property in question to enable them to reach at the first floor. Not only this, accused persons also threatened that in case petitioner and his wife made any attempt to enter in the premises, their hands and legs will be broken. Petitioner made a call at telephone No. 100, pursuant whereof PCR van arrived at the spot and asked them to visit Police Post Shanti Nagar. Since no action was taken against the accused as the local police was hand in glove with them, petitioner even made a complaint to higher police officers, but to no effect. Hence, the complaint.