The High Court dismissed a petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. seeking police protection to stay at a house owned by another person. The Court found the petitioner had no title and was misusing legal process for illegal possession with malafide intentions.
Petition dismissed with costs of Rs.20,000 payable by the petitioner.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
Criminal Misc.M-No.10734 of 2011
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
Criminal Misc.M-No.10734 of 2011(O&M) Date of Decision:03.05.2012
Dilbagh Singh
.....petitioner
Versus
State of Punjab and others
.....respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAMESHWAR SINGH MALIK
Present: Mr. Sameer Sachdev, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr. Deepak Balyan, Addl. A.G., Punjab for the State.
Mr. S.S. Hira, Advocate for respondents No.5 to 7.
RAMESHWAR SINGH MALIK J.(ORAL):
The petitioner has approached this Court, invoking the inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C., praying for issuance of a direction to respondents No.2 and 3 to take appropriate action on the complaint dated 21.9.2010 (Annexure P-1) submitted by the petitioner.
Notice of motion was issued. Reply has been filed by way of affidavit of Ram Singh, Deputy Superintendent of Police, Sub Division Tanda, District Hoshiarpur, on behalf of respondents No.1 to 3.
Learned counsel for the State, on instructions from ASI
Criminal Misc.M-No.10734 of 2011
2
Bhupinder Singh, Police Station Garhdiwala, District Hoshiarpur, submits that the complaint of the petitioner was thoroughly gone into and no substance therein was found. He further submits that earlier also, he got FIR No.254 dated 24.11.2003 under Sections 364,365 and 34 IPC registered at Police Station Tanda, District Hoshiarpur, which was found to be false and cancellation report was submitted therein.
Faced with the above stated situation, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is not being allowed by the private respondents to stay in his house located in the village Jian Sahota Kalan. However, on instruction from the petitioner, who is present in Court, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that Village Jian Sahota Kalan is neither the ancestral village of the petitioner nor he got any landed property or immovable property in his name in the village 'Abadi' or within revenue estate of the village. The petitioner claims that the house owned by Smt. Udham Kaur was gifted to him by one Subedar Amrik Singh, who was having General Power of Attorney of Smt. Udham Kaur. However, admittedly, there is no gift deed or General Power of Attorney suffered by Smt. Udham Kaur, available on the record to substantiate the claim of the petitioner.
In view of the above discussion, it has become crystal clear that the petitioner has been misusing the process of law all throughout. He has got no claim of any kind, whatsoever, over the house left behind by Smt. Udham Kaur, who is admittedly residing abroad with her family. Once the petitioner has got no title or interest in the house left behind by Smt. Udham Kaur, he cannot claim any kind of protection from the police authorities to
Criminal Misc.M-No.10734 of 2011
3
facilitate him to stay in the house, which is not in his ownership.
After hearing learned counsel for the parties at length, this Court is of the considered opinion that the petitioner has been misusing the process of law as he is not entitled to any kind of relief at the hands of this Court. In fact, the petitioner wants to put his illegal possession over the residential house of Smt. Udham Kaur, who is staying abroad. His intentions are malafide and clear. The inherent powers of this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. cannot be allowed to be misused by the petitioner for achieving ulterior motive.
Keeping in view the totality of the facts and circumstances of the present case, coupled with the reasons aforementioned, present petition is dismissed with costs, which are quantified at Rs.20,000/-. The costs would be deposited by the petitioner with the Secretary, Legal Services Authority, Punjab, within three months from today.
The Secretary, Legal Services Authority, Punjab is directed to apprise this Court, in case the petitioner does not deposit the amount of costs within three months from today so as to ensure compliance of the aforesaid order.
(RAMESHWAR SINGH MALIK) JUDGE
03.05.2012 sk
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the petitioner is entitled to invocation of inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to seek protection to stay in a house where he has no title or ownership.
Whether the petitioner has been misusing the process of law to achieve an ulterior motive by claiming protection for illegal possession of another's property.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Dilbagh Singh
State of Punjab
Rameshwar Singh Malik
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
