Delhi District Court
Sukhvinder Kaur vs . The State & Others on 3 December, 2012
Sukhvinder Kaur Vs. The State & others
CA No.66/12
IN THE COURT OF SHRI VIJAY SINGH DAHIYA
ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE
DWARKA COURTS : DELHI
In the matter of :-
Smt. Sukhvinder Kaur
W/o Shri Udham Singh
C/o H.No.97, Prem Colony,
Karnal, Haryana
... Appellant
VERSUS
1. State
2. Manjit Singh
S/o Shri Udham Singh
3. Ms. Roshni Bhatia
D/o Shri Gurdayal Singh
Both (2&3) R/o H-37,
Arya Samaj Road,
Uttam Nagar, New Delhi
(Now declared PO by the Trial Court) ... Respondent
CA No. 66/12
Date of Institution:11.05.2012
Reserved for orders on:17.11.2012
Judgment announced on: 03.12.2012
JUDGMENT
1. Vide this order I shall dispose of the appeal filed by the CA No. 66/12 Page 1 of 5 03.12.2012 Sukhvinder Kaur Vs. The State & others CA No.66/12 appellant/ complainant whereby the application of the appellant u/s 452 Cr.P.C. is dismissed by the Ld. Trial Court vide impuged order dt. 10-04-2012.
2. Brief facts in nutshell are that it is alleged that appellant/ complainant has filed complaint against respondent no.2 and 3 and after taking cognizance summons were issued to the respondent no.2 and 3 u/s 448, 341, 323/34 IPC. It is further averred that accused persons has illegally occupied the house of the complainant and caused threat and injury to the appellant, her husband and daughter and the accused persons/ respondent also by using criminal force has dispossessed the complainant from her own house, the possession thereof she is entitled as per law. It it further alleged that it is transpired that the accused persons have left the property in question and shifted to some unknown place in order to avoid the criminal proceedings and the appellant has moved an application u/s 452 Cr.P.C. for restoring the property from which she has been dispossessed. It is further contended that impuged order is based on conjecture and surmises and trial court has failed to appreciate the provisions of Section 452 Cr.P.C. in the right perspective, in view of the settled law, as under the said provision the possession can be restored to the person who has been illegally dispossessed. In this regard counsel for petitioner has relied upon three judgments AIR (30) 1943 Madras 392 Nalluswami Reddi Vs. Nallammal, AIR(30) 1943 Madras 393 Chidambaram Chettiar Vs.Jagu H.Shah and R.C.Cooper CA No. 66/12 Page 2 of 5 03.12.2012 Sukhvinder Kaur Vs. The State & others CA No.66/12 Vs. Union of India AIR 1970 SC 566.
3. On the other hand, ld.State Counsel has contended that Ld. Trial Court has rightly appreciated the factual position and in terms of Section 452 Cr.P.C., no status quo ante can be restored in respect of immovable property as the right, title or interest in the immovable property is to be adjudicated upon by the Civil Court.
4. I have heard Ld. Counsel for the parties and perused the record carefully.
5. First of all I would like to reproduce Section 452 Cr.P.C. which reads as under:
Order for disposal of property at conclusion of trial-
(1) When an inquiry or trial in any Criminal Court is concluded, the Court may make such order as it thinks fit for the disposal, by destruction, confiscation or delivery to any person claiming to be entitled to possession thereof or otherwise, of any property or document produced before it or in its custody, or regarding which any offence appears to have been committed, or which has been used for the commission of any offence.
(2) An order may be made under sub-section (1) for the delivery of any property to any person claiming to be entitled to the possession thereof, without any condition or on condition that he executes a bond with or without sureities, to the satisfaction of the Court, engaging to restore such property to the Court if the order made under sub-section CA No. 66/12 Page 3 of 5 03.12.2012 Sukhvinder Kaur Vs. The State & others CA No.66/12 (1) is modified or set aside on appeal or revision. (3) A Court of Session may, instead of itself making an order under sub-section (1), direct the property to be delivered to the Chief Judicial Magistrate, who shall thereupon deal with it in the manner provided in Sections 457, 458 and 459.
(4) Except where the property is livestock or is subject to speedy and natural decay, or where a bond has been executed in pursuance of sub-
section (2), an order made under sub-section (1) shall not be carried out for two months, or when an appeal is presented, until such appeal has been deposed of.
(5) In this section, the term "property" includes, in the case of property regarding which an offence appears to have been committed, not only such property as has been originally in the possession or under the control of any party, but also any property into or for which the same may have been converted or exchanged and anything acquired by such conversion or exchange, whether immediately or otherwise.
6. Bare perusal of this Section makes it crystal clear that it refers to property involved in a criminal case and "An analysis of this provision would show that it refers to property or document (a) which is produced before the Court, or (b) which is in the custody of the Court, or (c) regarding which any offence appears to have been committed, or
(d) which has been used for the commission of any offence. Then, at the conclusion of the enquiry or trial, the disposal of any class of the CA No. 66/12 Page 4 of 5 03.12.2012 Sukhvinder Kaur Vs. The State & others CA No.66/12 property listed above, may be made by (i) destruction (ii) confiscation, or (iii) delivery of any person entitled to be possession thereof." The mandate of Section 452 Cr.P.C. is to the effect that only in cases of a trial which has been concluded but this provision can be resorted to in present case, trial is in progress and this fact has not been controverted by the petitioner. Otherwise also, as has been rightly observed by the trial court that the appellant is not in exclusive possession of the property in question as a civil suit regarding ownership of the same is pending in the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi, therefore, neither the property in question is in exclusive possession of the appellant nor the trial stands concluded so as to invoke the provision of Section 452 Cr.P.C., therefore, this appeal is devoid of merit and is hereby dismissed. Copy be sent to the ld. Trial Court for information. Appeal stands disposed off in these terms. Copy of the judgment is supplied free of cost to the appellant. Trial Court Record be sent back with a copy of the judgment for information and compliance. Appeal file be consigned to record room.
Announced in the open court (Vijay Kumar Dahiya
on the 03rd December, 2012 ASJ/ Dwarka Courts
New Delhi/03.12.2012
CA No. 66/12 Page 5 of 5 03.12.2012