RADHA DHIR Vs. SENIOR SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioners seek issuance of a writ, order or direction especially in the nature of mandamus directing respondents No. 1 and 2 to initiate appropriate criminal proceedings against respondents No. 3 to 7 who have taken possession of the front portion of house in dispute forcibly from the petitioners on 24.10.1984 in utter disregard of the stay order granted by the Civil Court; to direct the holding of enquiry into the high- handedness of the police and the respondents by some judicial officer; ordering for restoring back possession of the property illegally taken and to protect the life and property of the petitioners and their family members.

(2.) BROADLY put, it is the case of petitioner No. 1 that she is wife of Ram Chand Dhir, respondent No. 5. Petitioner No. 2 is minor daughter of the petitioner and respondent No. 5. According to petitioner No. 1 she is in possession of house No. 539/193/13-B-25, Gali No. 9, Gobind Nagar, New Shivpuri, Ludhiana. She is residing in this house along with her children. It is the case of the petitioner that on 4.10.1992 Ram Chand Dhir and Chander Shekhar, his son (from his other wife), threatened to take forcible possession of the property which impelled the petitioner No. 1 to file a civil suit against them on 5.10.1992. Status quo was ordered to be maintained by the Sub Judge, Ludhiana, vide order dated 7.10.1992 which was later on vacated on 18.11.1992. Feeling aggrieved by this order, petitioner filed appeal before the Additional District Judge who vide order dated 26.11.1992 restrained the respondents, namely, Ram Chand Dhir and Chander Shekhar from taking forcible possession of the property in dispute. It is during the pendency of the appeal that respondent No. 5 sold some portion of the property in dispute to Surender Kumar, respondent No. 4, vide sale deed dated 23.10.1992. In view of this fact, Additional District Judge sent back the file to the trial Court so as to enable the petitioner to move an application for amendment of the plaint. Accordingly, petitioner filed the necessary application for amendment of the plaint impleading the subsequent vendee as a defendant. Additional District Judge, however, restrained Surender Kumar, respondent No. 4, from taking forcible possession of the property in dispute. Thus, despite the interim stay granted by the Court, respondent Surender Kumar along with Smt. Pushpa Rani and Jai Gopal in connivance with the Senior Superintendent of Police, Ludhiana, and Constable Sarwan Singh took forcible possession of the front portion of the property in dispute and the petitioners when protested against this illegal action of the private respondents and highhandedness of the police officials, were falsely implicated in a criminal case FIR No. 291 dated 28.8.1994 under Section 280 IPC.

(3.) RESPONDENT No. 2 Sh. Darshan Singh, A.S.I., Incharge Police Post Salemtabri has filed written statement in the form of affidavit. It has been urged in the affidavit that Smt. Radha Dhir petitioner is not the legally wedded wife of Ram Chand respondent No. 5. It is also denied that Smt. Radha Dhir is in occupation of the entire house in question. Reference to registration of case FIR No. 307 dated 16.10.1992 under Sections 457/380 of the Indian Penal Code has been made. Another FIR No. 365 dated 27.10.1994 under Sections 324/34 of the Indian Penal Code has been registered against Smt. Radha Dhir and her son Viney Dhir and two others for causing injuries to Pushpa Rani. According to the answering respondent, the present petition is a counter-blast to afore-mentioned criminal cases registered against the petitioners. It has been specifically denied that the police of Police Post Salemtabri connived with respondent No. 4 to 7 for taking illegal possession of the house in dispute.