G. P. Mathur, J. - (1.) This petition under Art. 32 of the Constitution has been filed praying for a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ or other directions be issued to :-"a) Conduct an inquiry by any Honble Judge of the Honble High Court or an independent and impartial authority regarding the FIR 521 dated 9-7-1998 lodged at Sector 20 P.S. NOIDA and the harassment caused to the petitioner for the last six years and grant compensation to the petitioner for rehabilitation at Delhi. b) Grant compensation to the petitioner for a further period of two years for restoration of his earlier practice and for settling in Delhi with his family. c) Conduct an inquiry into the loss caused to Y. Pitchaiah the client of the petitioner whose original record was stolen by the accused after he fought the litigation for 15 years in the Courts below. d) Conduct an inquiry by any Honble Judge of the Honble High Court or an independent and impartial authority regarding six years of delay in prosecuting the accused especially with reference to the proceedings in Crl. Revision No. 33/2002 at Dehradun in the State of Uttaranchal. e) Direct the Special Magistrate, C.B.I. cases, Karkardooma, Delhi, to file status report for every 3 months. f) Pass any other writ/order direction as this Honble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the present case.
(2.) The case of the petitioner, in brief, is that Smt. Tara Bhatt (respondent No. 4) gave on rent the ground floor of flat bearing No. B-99, Sector 15, NOIDA, to him in September, 1995 on a rent of Rs. 3,000/- per month. Initially, a lease agreement was executed for eleven months, which contained a stipulation that the rent would be increased by 10% every year. The respondent No. 4 demanded an increase of 30% at the time of renewal of lease in March, 1997 and threatened that in case he failed to pay the enhanced rent, he would be evicted from the premises by use of force. The petitioner then filed Civil Suit No. 411 of 1997 in the Court of Civil Judge (SD), Ghaziabad seeking a relief of prohibitory injunction for restraining the respondent No. 4 from evicting him wherein an ex parte interim injunction was granted in his favour on 28-3-1997, which was confirmed on 31-1-1998. The petitioner along with his family left for his native place in Kakinada in Andhra Pradesh in 15-5-1998 after looking his residential premises, which contained household items like furniture, refrigerator, T.V., files of his clients and library books, etc. The respondent No. 4, however, lodged an FIR on 18-5-1998 at Police Station Sector 20, NOIDA alleging that on 15-5-1998 she along with her family had gone to attend a marriage from where she came back late in the night. In the morning of 16-5-1998 she found that the doors of the residential premises, which was in the occupation of the petitioner, were wide open and that the petitioner had left the place and had also removed his goods. In the FIR a request was made that the premises may be inspected. The petitioner returned from his native place on 9-7-1998 and found that the respondent No. 4 had illegally taken possession of the premises, which was under his occupation. He then lodged an FIR about the incident at the concerned police station on 9-7-1998. The plea of the petitioner further is that by virtue of an order passed by this Court on 5-2-1999 the CBI was entrusted the job of investigating the criminal case, which had been registered on the basis of the FIR lodged by him. The CBI was able to recover his goods worth more than Rupees one lakh but the Court files could not be found. After completing the investigation the CBI filed a charge-sheet for prosecution of respondent No. 4 under Ss. 380 and 454, I.P.C. in the Court of Special Magistrate, CBI, Dehradun wherein the charges have been framed on 5-2-2002. The respondent No. 4 preferred criminal revision against the aforesaid order before the Sessions Judge, Dehradun, in which the record of the trial Court was summoned and a large number of dates had been fixed. Subsequently, the petitioner moved a transfer application before this Court, which was allowed on 22-1-2004 and the criminal case and also the criminal revision were transferred to Delhi.
(3.) The record shows that the petitioner-K. Vidya Sagar had earlier filed a Writ Petition under Art. 226 of the Constitution before the Allahabad High Court bearing number 24940 of 1998. In the said writ petition (1) State of U.P., (2) The Director General of Police, U.P., (3) SSP (NOIDA), (4) SP (NOIDA), (5) Shri Rajbir Singh, ASI, Gole Chakkar Police Chowky, Sector 15, NOIDA and (6) Smt. Tara Bhatt (respondent No. 4 in the present petition) were impleaded as respondents. The writ petition was filed on the same facts on which the present petition under Art. 32 of the Constitution has been filed. The prayer made in the writ petition filed before the High Court reads as under :- "i) Issue an appropriate writ, order or direction directing the respondents to restore the possession of premises No. B-99, Ground Floor, Sector 15, NOIDA in possession of the petitioner forthwith and further direct the respondent No. 6 not to interfere with the peaceful possession of the petitioner and further not to dispossess the petitioner without following the procedure established by law. ii) Issue an appropriate writ, order or direction directing the respondents to restore the petitioner with all his movable property which the petitioner has left in the premises in question on 15-5-1998. iii) issue an appropriate writ, order or direction to investigate into the whole matter by an independent investigating agency preferably by CBI. iv) Issue an appropriate writ, order or direction awarding heavy financial compensation against the respondent Nos. 3 to 5 as this Honble Court may deem fit in facts and circumstances of the case. v) Issue an appropriate writ, order or direction, directing the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 to initiate disciplinary actions against the respondent Nos. 3 to 5 for their collusion with the respondent No. 6 in indulging an unlawful activity, unbecoming of a police official who has to protect and enforce the law. vi) Issue an appropriate writ, order or direction, directing the respondent Nos. 3 to 5 to charge-sheet the respondent No. 6 for the criminal activities done by her and further direct the respondent No. 6 to pay compensation to the petitioner for the inconvenience caused to him because of her unlawful activities. vii) And/or to pass any further order or direction which this Honble Court may deem fit and proper under the facts and circumstances of the case." After exchange of affidavits the writ petition was dismissed by the High Court by the judgment and order dated 22-9-1998 and the relevant portion of the order reads as under :- "Sri P. K. Bisaria, learned standing counsel, informs us that the police authorities have filed their counter-affidavits. According to the assertion made by him even the petitioner was interrogated in order to ascertain the truth of his allegations made in the First Information Report. Initially, the petitioner in person, denied to have been interrogated by the police, but later on he comes up with a claim that the police had interrogated him under S. 161, Cr. P.C. on one day alone and had desired that he should file affidavits of at least two persons of the locality who had actually seen his goods being taken away by the landlady and her henchmen, on which he asked for some time. Sri Namwar Singh, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the landlady, alleged that the petitioner has not paid a single farthing since February, 1997 and that the lease was only for 11 months period, which had expired on 30-8-1996. She has also raised the rent of the premises as per the terms of the lease by 10% but the increased rent was also never paid by the petitioner. The petitioner in reply contends that he had made certain payments. The petitioner also submitted that the fact that he along with his wife and child had left NOIDA on 15th May, 1998 was accepted by the Investigating Officer and thereby we should draw an assumption in his favour that he was the tenant and that after he had left Noida his goods which he had kept in the leased premises have been looted away by the landlady. To this Mr. Namwar Singh, learned counsel for the landlady contended that the landlady had already left Noida along with her family members in the morning of 15th May, 1998 for attending marriage ceremony of her relation, and that the petitioner had already shifted his goods. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties including the petitioner in person we are of the view that since disputed questions of facts are involved in this writ petition it will not be desirable for this Court to adjudicate them in exercise of its extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. If the petitioner thinks that he has got a valid case either before any Civil Court and/or Criminal Court or any authority, he may avail that forum. Landlady will also be at liberty to approach any forum to claim for recovery of alleged difference of rent and/or compensation. With these observations this writ petition is dismissed. No costs." ;