KRUPAVATI AJEYSINH Vs. TUSHAR AMRUT TRIVEDI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By this petition, invoking Article 226 of the Constitution of India, one family of three, led by lady named Mrs.Krupavati Ajeysinh Rathod, has approached this court in person and has prayed that her family needs police protection. The danger shown is from the neighboring family of one Amrutlal Chaturbhuj Trivedi, who is aged about 75 years, who resides with his sons, daughters-in-law and grand children, who all are joined as party respondents No.1 to 8 in this petition. One of the complaints in the petition is to the effect that the dignity of the daughter of the petitioner is at stake at the hands of these private respondents and it is unsafe for her family to stay in her house, or to go in or out from her residence. It is also alleged in the petition that there is inaction on the part of the police authorities in this regard and hence she is constrained to move this Court, urgently.

(2.) The Registry of this Court was moved by the petitioner on 23.11.2012, after working hours. Taking the averments made in the petition on its face value, all office objections, including that the petition was unaffirmed, were dispensed with for the time being and circulation of the petition was permitted on that very day. After due procedure and permission for taking up such matter for hearing urgently, the matter was taken up for hearing at late evening by the Court, at the official residence. Mr.K.L.Pandya, learned Additional Public Prosecutor had remained present before the Court. The petitioner lady appeared in person and had addressed the Court at considerable length. Her husband Ajeysinh and daughter Nikita also addressed the Court at length. It was insisted by the petitioner, all the three persons, that they be provided police protection, that day itself (i.e. on 23.11.2012) and an order to that effect be passed against the authorities, ex-parte.

(3.) The paper-book of the petition contained unaffirmed Gujarati petition and photocopies of some illegible handwritten Gujarati documents, which was not of any assistance to the court and therefore, the petitioner, her husband and daughter were permitted to vent their grievance in whatever form they wanted, without restricting it to what was stated in the petition. While the petitioner trio were ventilating their grievances, this Court found that there was absolute inconsistency amongst themselves as to what their real grievance was and they were changing their stand rapidly. At some time it was against many of the residents of the flats, at some time it was against the landlord in whose flat the petitioner family is residing, some time it was against their neighbor residing on the same floor which are respondents in this petition, at some time against the watchman and at some time against the police authorities. The cause of grievance also changed dramatically. It changed from seepage of water from the walls of their flat, improper plastering, falling of some portion of plaster from the ceiling and thereby damage caused to some electronic items of the petitioner family, denial by the petitioner to pay rent to the landlord against the denial of the landlord to compensate the petitioner family for the damage which they suffered, non-payment of maintenance charges to the Flat Owners Association, insistence of Secretary to pay maintenance by the petitioner family etc. When it was indicated by the Court to the petitioner trio that these are not the issues which can be gone into by this Court, it was sought to be canvassed that there is no safety of the dignity of the daughter, who is aged about 21 years of age and the intention of moving the petition so urgently is that cause. By this time, the petitioner and both other family members had created sufficient doubt about the genuineness of that grievance, however, when it was indicated to be the question of dignity of a lady, howsoever bad their credentials be, Court could not have brushed aside that grievance and therefore it was thought fit to look into and inquire about that aspect from the authorities. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor Mr.Pandya was asked to inquire from the concerned police station in this regard. At this juncture, the petitioner trio insisted that before any instruction is taken from police, let there be some order. The insistence of getting ex-parte order further fortified the suspicion which had already taken shape in the mind of the Court by that time about the genuineness of the grievances of the petitioner. At that stage, all the three, again addressed the Court at length, mainly as to, that if instructions are taken from police, what type of complaints would come against petitioner themselves and what are their explanations thereto. The demeanour of these three persons (petitioners), which the court had advantage to observe, further fortified the impression which the Court had gathered, that filing of the present petition could be an arm twisting tactic by the petitioner. Under these circumstances it was thought prudent, not to pass any ex-parte order on 23.11.2012 and further hearing was scheduled on next day i.e. 24.11.2012 at 11:30 a.m. in the Court premises and learned Additional Public Prosecutor was asked to take appropriate instructions in the matter. Though being holiday, Registry was asked to make necessary arrangements for hearing of the matter on 24.11.2012, so that redressal of grievance of this nature, if genuine, is not delayed.