RAKESH KUMAR Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India read with Sec. 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 ("Cr.P.C.') has been filed on behalf of petitioners seeking following reliefs:

(2.) Briefly stated, the case of petitioners, is that they are the legal heirs of late Sh. Tara Chand and are resident of House No. 254, Mangolpur Kalan Village, Sector-2, Rohini, New Delhi. It is stated that a civil suit for declaration, mandatory injunction and partition i.e. CS (OS) No. 361/2004 had been filed before this Court and in the said suit, all the sons of late Sh. Tara Chand had been declared as joint owners having 1/5th share in the ancestral property. It is also stated that in the said suit, a Local Commissioner had been appointed by this Court vide order dtd. 2/2/2006 who had submitted his report in which he had informed that the petitioners were in possession of the property in dispute i.e. Khasra No. 70/1/1, Mangolpur Kalan, Delhi. It is stated that the report of Local Commissioner had also established that the rent out of the said property was divided amonst the legal heirs of late Sh. Tara Chand i.e. the petitioners. It is stated that on 5/1/2023, at about 10:00 AM, when the petitioners had reached their Shop No. 1 located at the said premises, they had found their shop to be unlocked and the lock lying on the ground, pursuant to which a police complaint vide DD No. 52A dtd. 5/1/2023 was lodged at Police Station South Rohini, and a complaint was also sent to DCP, Rohini vide DD No. 83 dtd. 6/1/2023 against one Smt. Kiran and her husband Sh. Bharat Singh who had allegedly entered the shop and had got the electricity meter installed in the name of Smt. Kiran. It is stated that instead of taking legal action against the alleged persons, respondent no. 3 had served the petitioners a kalandra/notice under Ss. 107/111 of Cr.P.C. dtd. 9/2/2023. It is further submitted that on 17/3/2023, one Sh. Dinesh Mann had also entered into the said property/shop along with 12 goons and had threatened the petitioners to not enter into the said property, and information qua this incident was given by petitioner no. 1 to the police on 18/3/2023, but no action has been taken till date. It is stated that petitioner no. 1 and 2 had received a physical copy of notice issued under Sec. 107/111 of Cr.P.C. and in compliance of the same, they had appeared before the learned SEM/respondent no. 3.

(3.) Learned counsel for petitioners states that the present matter involves a civil dispute, and invoking Sec. 107 of Cr.P.C. is an abuse of process of law and the said dispute has nothing to do with public tranquillity or breach of peace. It is stated that respondent no. 3 had issued impugned notices by violating principles of natural justice and without applying mind or conducting any inquiry about the truth of the information upon which it had issued impugned notices against the petitioners. It is also stated respondents no. 1 and 2 have not taken any action in response to the complaints made by the petitioners with respect to incident dtd. 5/1/2023. It is also argued that IO had acted on his whims and fancies and got the kalandra issued on the basis of complaint dtd. 9/1/2023 lodged by Sh. Bharat Singh. It is further stated that several people have been threatening petitioners and it poses a serious threat to their lives. Therefore, it is prayed that present petition be allowed.