BHAI SARBAJIT SINGH ALIAS SABI SABHARWAL Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a petition for quashing of Kalandara proceedings initiated against the petitioner under Section 107/111 read with section 113 Cr. P. C. presently pending in the Court of Mr. J. K. Malik, learned Special Executive magistrate, New Delhi and all the proceedings emanating therefrom including the order dated 14th May, 2008 and the show cause notice dated 14th May, 2008 and also the quashing of order dated 26th May, 2008 issuing bailable warrants against the petitioner.

(2.) THAT briefly stated the facts of case of the petitioned are that he is staying at property No. 9, Amrita Shergill Marg, New Delhi and that the said property belonged to his father Late Shri Bhai Trilochan Singh who expired on 14th August, 2007. After the death of Bhai Trilochan Singh it transpired that he had made a WILL dated 23rd March, 2006 in respect of property No. 9, Amrita Shergill Marg, New Delhi as well as the property No. 71 Jor Bagh, New Delhi. So far as the property No. 9, Amrita Shergill Marg, new Delhi is concerned, it was alleged that the said property was bequeathed by Bhai Trilochan Singh in favour of the petitioner while as the respondent No. 2/smt. Indu Sabharwal was granted a life estate property no. 71 Jor Bagh, New Delhi. It is alleged that after the death of Lt. Shri bhai Trilochan Singh the sisters of petitioner named as Nisha and Tara filed a suit for partition claiming the right in the property left behind by Late shri Bhai Trilochan Singh on the ground that he had died intestate. In the said suit the petitioner and the respondent No. 2 had filed a joint application admitting that Bhai Trilochan Singh had in fact not died intestate but left behind a WILL dated 23rd March, 2006. This joint application was signed by the respondent No. 2 on each and every page. It is alleged that the petitioner granted the permission to the respondent No. 2 to stay at property no. 9, Amrita Shergill Marg, New Delhi as long as the property which had fallen into the share of respondent No. 2 did not get ready for her to move in. It is alleged that respondent No. 2 despite having accepted the WILL without demur or protest started obstructing, threatening and harassing the servants and the staff of the petitioner from entering the property in his absence, with a view to claim a right in the said property while none existed. This led to filing of a suit for Permanent and Mandatory injunction bearing no. 684/2008 by the petitioner against the respondent No. 2.

(3.) THIS suit is pending before the High Court and notice was issued to the respondent No. 2 wherein an order of status quo was also issued. The order of status quo is said to have been violated resulting in filing of contempt petition. It is also alleged that the Court was pleased to direct the sho concerned to take steps to ensure that the petitioner is secured against any untoward incident in respect of property and no harm is caused to the petitioner. On 22nd April, 2008 the petitioner left for the South Africa in connection of business. The respondent no 2 with the help of some musclemen one of whom was named as Yadav duly armed with guns started threatening the petitioner's cook named as Kishen. It is alleged that this resulted in lodging of complaint by the servants of the petitioner which culminated into registration of a Kalandara under Section 107/150 Cr. P. C. against the petitioner as well as the respondent No. 2.