PARAMJIT KAUR Vs. UNION TERRITORY, CHANDIGARH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is Crl. Misc. No. 12472-M of 1999 whereby Paramjit Kaur (petitioner herein) is claiming anticipatory bail in case FIR No. 55 dated 17.4.99 registered under sections 448, 452, 380 IPC at PS Sector 19, Chandigarh.

(2.) The prosecution case in brief is that Gurdev Singh Sidhu is the owner of house No. 144, sector (15) Chandigarh. He is a permanent resident of Canada. One Baldeep Singh Dhaliwal is attorney managing the affairs of that house. In the year 1991, he filed eviction petition against Jagrup Singh qua two rooms kitchen with shared latrine and bath room on the right side of the ground floor of house No. 144(ibid). One hall room, drawing-cum-dining room were converted into two rooms which were given on rent and other two rooms along with shared latrine, bath room on the ground floor towards the left side of the living portion were kept in the self-possession of Gurdev Singh Sidhu. Effects of Gurdev Singh Sidhu were lying on the left side portion on the ground floor. Whenever Gurdev Singh Sidhu came to Chandigarh, he stayed in the said two rooms. He is now residing in village Nihalsinghwala, Moga. In the said eviction petition, eviction order was passed against Jagrup Singh by Rent Controller, Chandigarh on 7.5.96. Appeal of Jagrup Singh failed before the appellate authority, Chandigarh on 7.10.97. His revision also failed before the High Court on 15.12.98. In the review petition filed by him which was dismissed on 5.2.99 two months time was allowed to him to vacate the premises. This two months period expired on 14.4.99 and he came to Chandigarh on 16.4.99 and contacted his counsel at his chamber at 4 PM with a view to putting in execution application for executing the order of eviction and taking possession of the premises. He went to his house and felt shocked to see that on the portion in his possession, the lock put up by him was removed and new lock fixed in its place. He knocked at door of the tenanted premises and Jagrup Singh and his wife Paramjit Kaur (petitioner herein) came out. They abused him and threatened him with dire consequences in case he again visited the premises. They further threatened that he had no concern with the house. He found five pipe beds and six complete beds, sofa set, four chairs, 10 tables, five ceiling fans of Orient make, etc. stolen. He could not give the entire details of the theft committed by them since he was not allowed to enter the portion of the said house in which his effects were lying. He requested them to hand over the possession when they had lost the eviction proceedings. Jagrup Singh brought out hockey from inside with a view to hit him but he ran away. On the complaint of Baldeep Singh Dhaliwal, case FIR No. 55 dated 17.4.99 was registered under section 448, 452, 380 IPC at PS Sector 19, Chandigarh against Jagrup Singh and Paramjit Kaur.

(3.) Learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted in support of petitioner's prayer for anticipatory bail, that on 1.1.94, the petitioner had also taken two rooms, store, common latrine and bath room on rent on the ground floor of the said house. One portion was in their tenancy since the year 1989. Other portion came in their tenancy in the year 1994. It was further submitted that Baldeep Singh Dhaliwal had no locus standi to have this case registered against them as he was merely an attorney to file eviction proceedings. He was not authorised to institute this complaint. It was submitted that this is a false complaint made by Baldeep Singh haliwal against them. When they were in possession since 1.1.94, how could there be any effects belonging to Gurdev Singh Sidhu in that portion on 17.4.1999. It was submitted that this false case was engineered against them at the instance of one, Zora Singh who is Inspector in the Punjab Police. It was further submitted that with a view to stall their dispossession from that portion, civil suit for permanent injunction was filed in which temporary injunction was granted restraining their forcible dispossession. It was submitted that this case has been engineered for putting undue pressure on the tenant.