ANJU DEVI Vs. COMMISSIONER OF POLICE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner is wife of Ved Prakash, Respondent No.4.Respondent No.3 - Smt.Mohini Devi is mother of Ved Prakash, Commissioner ofPolice and Station House Officer, Police Station Jahangirpuri are respondents Iand 2 respectively. The petitioner, inter-alia, seeks issue of writ of mandamusdirectingrespondentsland2to put herback in possession of premises No.l731-K-Block, Jahangirpuri, Delhi, claiming that she has been residing in the saidpremises since November, 1989 and was illegally dispossessed on 30/08/1993 as a result of connivance and collusion between respondents 3 and 4 and thePolice. She also seeks registration of First Information Report against the culpritsand enquiry/action against the Police officials who colluded and connived withrespondents 3 and 4 in dispossessing her.

(2.) Petitioner and respondent No.4 were married on 13/05/1989. It is notdisputed that since about November, 1989 petitioner has been living in thepremises in question and also that matrimonial disputes started between thehusband and the wife sometime in the year 1989 itself. In the reply filed byrespondents 3 and 4, their stand is not that prior to 30/08/1993 they wereliving in the premises inquestion. Their stand is that the possession of the housewas delivered to them on 30/08/1993 and since then they were living inthe house. During course of hearing, Mr.Andley, learned Counsel for respondents 3 and 4 on instructions from his client told us that his clients had not been livingin the premises in question for last about four years prior to 30/08/1993.Therefore, admittedly, respondents 3 and 4 have been living in some differentpremises and not in premises in question before 30/08/1993. Before weconsider the stand of the respondents as to the manner in which respondents 3 and4 came into possession on 30/08/1993 we may notice briefly the backgroundof the case including the disputes which were pending between the petitioner andrespondents 3 and 4 before 30/08/1993 as that will demonstrate, to a largeextent, the role played by the police in the entire episode. First, we will brieflynotice as to what petitioner says in the writ petition.

(3.) After the marriage she went to matrimonial home at No.2Gali Mata Wali,Babaji Ka Gher,402,Teliwara, Delhi, and stayed there for about a month. On thedate of marriage respondents 3 and 4 and other relatives had not taken with themthe dowry articles on the pretext that the articles demanded by them had not beenincluded and that they will take the complete dowry articles only when all thedemanded articles were given. There were taunts and maltreatment to her at thehands of respondents 3 and 4 and other relations. Keeping in view the persistentdemands her parents arranged some of the articles demanded by them and alsosubsequently paid cashofRs.10,000.00for the purpose of separate house where shewas to reside with her husband separately. A list of dowry articles given on 1/10/1989 was duly signed by both the parties (copy annexed). That inspiteof articles mentioned in the list having been given the lust for money still subsistedand she was again tortured to get more and more. That with the interference ofsome of the relations from both the sides the petitioner and her husband startedliving separately at the premises in question for purchase of which Rs.10,000.00were paid by the parents of the petitioner. Sometimes thereafter the husbandagain deserted her and started residing with his parents on the pretext thatpetitioner must bring a Scooter for him. She was not provided with food andclothing besides other necessities of life and she filed a petition for maintenancewhich is pending before the Competent Court. On two occasions i.e. on 1/01/1990 and 1/03/1990 respondents 3 and 4 alongwith other relativescame to the premises in question and started beating the petitioner and took awaymost of the dowry articles with them and with great struggle only a complaintunder Section 107/151 Criminal Procedure Code was registered against respondents 3 and 4 but thatwas not sent to Court. Numerous attempts were made by respondents 3 and 4to dispossess her. Respondent No.3 gave a notice dated 3/08/1992 to thepetitioner claiming that she was the absolute owner of property in questionpurchased on 12/09/1989 and staling that the petitioner was allowedto use the said premises alongwith her husband under the bonafide belief that shewould stay like an obedient licencee but after shifting to the house petitionermisbehaved with respondent No.3 and tried to harass her and that she was notstaying in the house as an obedient licencee and her licence was revoked and shewas called upon to vacate the house within 15 days of the receipt of the notice orelse respondent No.3 will be forced to take legal action through appropriate Courtof law. That on 27th November 1992 respondents 3 and 4 with 5/6 unidentifiedpersons tried to dispossess her and with the intervention of neighbours they couldnot succeed and a complaint to that effect was lodged with SHO on 2 7/11/1992.