ANJU DEVI Vs. COMMISSIONER OF POLICE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITIONER is wife of Ved Prakash, Respondent No. 4. Respondent No. 3 -Smt. Mohini Devi is mother of Ved Prakash, Commissioner of Police and Station House Officer, Police Station Jahangirpuri are respondents No. 1 and 2 respectively. The petitioner, inter alia, seeks issue of writ of mandamus directing respondents No. 1 and 2 to put her back in possession of premises No. 1731 -K -Block, Jahangirpuri, Delhi, claiming that she has been residing in the said premises since November, 1989 and was illegally dispossessed on 30th August, 1993 as a result of connivance and collusion between respondents No. 3 and 4 and the Police. She also seeks registration of First Information Report against the culprits and enquiry/action against the Police officials who colluded and connived with respondents No. 3 and 4 in dispossessing her.

(2.) PETITIONER and respondent No. 4 were married on 13th May, 1989. It is not disputed that since about November, 1989 petitioner has been living in the premises in question and also that matrimonial disputes started between the husband and the wife sometime in the year 1989 itself. In the reply filed by respondents No. 3 and 4, their stand is not that prior to 30th August, 1993 they were living in the premises in question. Their stand is that the possession of the house was delivered to them on 30th August, 1993 and since then they were living in the house. During course of hearing, Mr. Andley, learned counsel for respondents No. 3 and 4 on instructions from his client told us that his clients had not been living in the premises in question for last about four years prior to 30th August, 1993. Therefore, admittedly, respondents No. 3 and 4 have been living in some different premises and not in premises in question before 30th August, 1993. Before we consider the stand of the respondents as to the manner in which respondents 3 and 4 came into possession on 30th August, 1993 we may notice briefly the background of the case including the disputes which were pending between the petitioner and respondents No. 3 and 4 before 30th August, 1993 as that will demonstrate, to a large extent, the role played by the police in the entire episode. First, we will briefly notice as to what petitioner says in the writ petitioner : -

(3.) AFTER the marriage she went to matrimonial home at No. 2 Gali Mata Wali, Babaji Ka Gher, 402, Teliwara, Delhi, and stayed there for about a month. On the date of marriage respondents No. 3 and 4 and other relatives had not taken with them the dowry articles on the pretext that the articles demanded by them had not been included and that they will take the complete dowry articles only when all the demanded articles were given. There were taunts and maltreatment to her at the hands of respondents No. 3 and 4 and other relations. Keeping in view the persistent demands her parents arranged some of the articles demanded by them and also subsequently paid cash of Rs. 10,000/ - for the purpose of separate house where she was to reside with her husband separately. A list of dowry articles given on 1st October 1989 was duly signed by both the parties (copy annexed). That in spite of articles mentioned in the list having been given the lust for money still subsisted and she was again tortured to get more and more. That with the interference of some of the relations from both the sides the petitioner and her husband started living separately at the premises in question for purchase of which Rs. 10,000/ - were paid by the parents of the petitioner. Sometimes thereafter the husband again deserted her and started residing with his parents on the pretext that petitioner must bring a Scooter for him. She was not provided with food and clothing besides other necessities of life and she filed a petition for maintenance which is pending before the competent court. On two occasions i.e. on 1st January 1990 and 1st March 1990 respondents 3 and 4 along with other relatives came to the premises in question and started beating the petitioner and took away most of the dowry articles with them and with great struggle only a complaint under Section 107/151 Cr.P.C. was registered against respondents No. 3 and 4 but that was not sent to court. Numerous attempts were made by respondents No. 3 and 4 to dispossess her. Respondent No. 3 gave a notice dated 3rd August, 1992 to the petitioner claiming that she was the absolute owner of property in question purchased on 12th September, 1989 and stating that the petitioner was allowed to use the said premises along with her husband under the bonafide belief that she would stay live an obedient licencee but after shifting to the house petitioner misbehaved with respondent No. 3 and tried to harass her and that she was not staying in the house as an obedient licencee and her licence was revoked and she was called upon to vacate the house within 15 days of the receipt of the notice or else respondent No. 3 will be forced to take legal action through appropriate court of law. That on 27th November 1992 respondents No. 3 and 4 with 5/6 unidentified persons tried to dispossess her and with the intervention of neighbours they could not succeed and a complaint to that effect was lodged with SHO on 27th November, 1992.