MAM CHAND Vs. COMMISSIONER OF POLICE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this petition under Section 482, Code of Criminal Procedure (for short 'the Code') the petitioners seek quashing of proceedings in Case No. 5/84-J-Criminal-l styled State v. Mam Chand etc. under Section 107/150 to the Code.

(2.) The property bearing No 784 which is a four storeyed quarter situated at Raghbir Nagar, New Delhi, is the bone of contention between the petitioners and respondents 5 to 10. From a perusal of the record of the aforesaid case it would appear that security proceedings under Section 107/150 of the Code were initiated by respondent No. 2 who is an Assistant Commissioner of Police with powers of Executive Magistrate at Moti Nagar, on the basis of a Kalendra submitted to him by Rajouri Garden police on 31st December 1983. According to the said Kalendra which in turn is founded on daily diary entry No. 9 of the same date made by SI Teja Singh, Jagat Singh-respondent No. 7 reported to him while he was present in Janta Colony that the house in question which was D.D.A. property had been in occupation of Jagat Singh for the last several years although it had not been allotted by the D.D.A. to him. Anil Kumar-respondent No. 5 and Sunil Kumar-respondent No. 6 had also been living with him in the said house for some time. Mam Chand-peritioner, who too had been formerly living in the said house for some time, was aware of this fact However, he left the house and eloped with Neelam Kumari-petilioner No. 2, who was formerly wife of one Prem Parkash, a few years ago but he again started asserting his claim over the said house taking advantage of the fact that Jagat Singh was in unauthorised possession of the same. The petitioners buried threats to Jagat Singh and others that they would kill them in case the possession of the house in question was not handed back to them. Apprehending that the petitioners might take law into their own hands and commit breach of peace any time in the absence of Anil Kumar and Sunil Kumar who used to go on their work during day time, he approached SI Teja Singh and requested him to take necessary action for ensuring safety to him and his property.

(3.) A preliminary order was drawn up by the Executive Magistrate under section I I I in view of the information received by him through police kalendra and the petitioners were summoned to appear before the Executive Magistrate on 7th January 1984. They were served on 5th January 1984 with the said summons. However, instead of appearing before respondent No 2, the petitioners rushed to this Court with this petition for quashing the proceedings under section 107/150 of the Code initiated against them by respondent No. 2.