RANJIT SINGH,J - (1.) PETITIONER , a widow of Army Officer, who died in accident, is facing the onslaught of near relatives of her husband. Result is that she is saddled with criminal charges. This move is aimed at depriving her of legal right in the joint property left by her husband. The Courts apparently have been insensitive to the plight of this widow. Though it would be satisfying to notice that the State did act to rectify the situation arising out of action by the police to register a case against lady, by moving an application for withdrawal of prosecution under Section 321 Cr.P.C. The Court of Magistrate and Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track, Gurdaspur, have dismissed this application filed by the State. The petitioner has now impugned the said orders by filing two Criminal Misc. Petition Nos. M 2720 of 2008 and 55144 of 2007 as two separate FIRs were registered against the petitioner and prayer of the State for withdrawal from prosecution has been declined in both these cases. Both these petitions are being disposed of by this common order.
(2.) TROUBLE for the petitioner started when her husband died in road accident on 15.4.1997. The petitioner, who was travelling with her late husband at the time of accident also suffered multiple injuries, for which she remained bed ridden for a considerable period. The complainants, who are closely related to her late husband, instead of helping her out, had acted to take benefit of her sorrow and are continuously harassing her on one pretext or the other. The aim is to deprive her of the share in the property left by her husband. The issue in dispute seems to be a Kothi, which the late husband of the petitioner appears to have made his abode after his retirement. Concededly, he had a share in this house and had accordingly occupied the same. The son of the complainant earlier filed a Civil Suit No. 94 of 1998 in the Courts at Gurdaspur by pleading that the said house has come to his share in partition. He had accordingly moved an application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC, seeking interim direction for staying his dispossession, which statedly was under threat from the petitioner, who was impleaded as defendant in the said suit. In response to the said application, the petitioner pointed out before the Court that she alongwith her husband was residing in this Kothi since 1996 and the plaintiff in the suit had taken forcible possession of the Kothi on 7.9.1998, when the petitioner had gone to Ludhiana in connection with her treatment for the injuries that she suffered in the accident. The petitioner had proved on record the telephone bill, ration card, gas connection and the residential certificate to show her possession over the Kothi. The Civil Court, on the basis of material placed before it, came to the conclusion that Kothi in dispute was joint between the parties and the petitioner (defendant in the suit) was in possession of the same as co-sharer. The partition as alleged by the plaintiff in the suit was not believed as it was not reflected in the revenue record and hence possession of the petitioner in the Kothi was held to be that of a co-sharer and the prayer for interim direction, as sought, was declined.
(3.) IT appears that having remained unsuccessful in their attempt to dislodge the petitioner through civil suit, the complainant resorted to filing criminal complaints against her. The complainant lodged an FIR on 16.6.2000 under Sections 452, 427, 342/506 IPC and 25/27/54/59 of the Arms Act. It is alleged against the petitioner that she had demolished the wall of the house for making forcible entry. The reading of the allegations made in the FIR would on the face of it show the falsity and absurdity of the allegations made against the lady. She was stated to be armed with a revolver and had started demolishing the wall. She was accused of breaking doors of bed rooms. So much so, it is alleged that she broke open the door with Gainti, which she was holding at the time alongwith the revolver. A lady is alleged to be having a revolver in a hand and a Gainti in another to break open the door. Would it not sound absurd and unbelievable on the face of it ?.;