ONKAR CHANDER JAGPAL Vs. UNION TERRITORY, CHANDIGARH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The matrix of the facts, culminating in the commencement, relevant for the limited purpose of deciding the core controversy, involved in the instant petition and emanating from the record, is that petitioners Dr. Onkar Chander Jagpal and his wife Smt. Adarsh Jagpal claimed that they are residing in house, bearing No. 1318, Sector 15-B, Chandigarh for the last about 35 years. Complainant Sohini Chaudhary respondent No. 2 (for brevity "the complainant"), daughter of Ram Lubhaya Chaudhary, desired to purchase the said house from the very beginning. Since the petitioners have purchased 50% share of the house in question from Natinder Dhillon, so, the complainant and her other family members became inimical and started harassing them on false and frivolous grounds.

(2.) Having purchased the half of the portion of the indicated house petitioner No. 1 Dr. Onkar Chander Jagpal filed an application against Smt. Santosh Chaudhary wife of Ram Lubhaya (mother of the complainant), Smt. Sushil wife of H.S. Dhillon and Smt. Kamlesh wife of Sohan Lal under Section 12 of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction (Extension to Chandigarh), Act, 1974, which was accepted and the respondents were directed to carry out the necessary repairs, failing which petitioner No. 1 was given the liberty to get the repairs carried out, by the Rent Controller, by virtue of order dated 4.12.1998 (Annexure P2). The prolonged civil & criminal litigation between the parties is also clear from the orders dated 15.6.1999 (Annexure P3), dated 19.2.2001 (Annexure P4), enquiry report (Annexure P5), copies of letters to Inspector General of Police (IG) dated 12.6.2006 (Annexures P6 & P8) and letter to XEN (Annexure P7).

(3.) Meanwhile, the complainant made a complaint against the petitioners-accused (which formed the basis of FIR Annexure P1), with the following allegations :-