Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

4. On 25.8.2007, Petitioner found a change in the attitude of Urvashi Bansal/Respondent No. 4. Respondent No. 4 along with her sister Upma Bhagoria (Respondent No. 5) visited flat No. 198, Swastik Kunj and broke open the locks of the said flat. On this, Petitioner made a call at 100 and brought all these facts to the notice of the police. A PCR Van visited the flat and took the Petitioner, Respondent No. 4 and her sister to the Police Station. At Police Station, Petitioner was made to sit outside and a complaint was got registered by Respondent No. 4 in connivance with police officials against the Petitioner. He alleged that the police officials were in collusion and connivance with Respondent No. 4 and registered a false case against the Petitioner instead of registering a complaint of the Petitioner regarding breaking open of lock. Petitioner was falsely implicated in proceedings under Section 107/151 Cr.P.C. and was taken into custody. Respondent No. 4, with the help and connivance of police took forcible possession of flat No. 198, Swastik Kunj, Rohini. Petitioner furnished surety bond before Special Executive Magistrate on 29.8.2007 and was released from the jail on 30.8.2007. After his release from jail, when he reached his flat No. 53, Swastik Kunj, where he was living for past 8 years, he noticed that outer lock of the door had been broken and Respondent No. 4 had removed all belongings of the Petitioner. Petitioner approached the concerned Police Station and brought these facts to the notice of the SHO. Instead of registering his complaint, police officials threatened him that in case he visited the flat again another proceedings under Section 107/151 Cr.P.C. shall be initiated against him. Petitioner made complaint to the higher police officials but in vain. On 22.9.2007, Respondent No. 4 called upon the Petitioner to return all original documents of the flats and threatened that in case those are not returned, she would get the Petitioner eliminated. Petitioner stated that he was forced to live in a 'dharamshala' as he was not in a position to live in flat No. 53 and also had no other house. The Petitioner then sent a complaint to the Chief Justice of Delhi High Court with copy to the Commissioner of Police. He has challenged the action of the police on various grounds.

(10) Nothing in this section shall be deemed to be in derogation of the powers of the Magistrate to proceed under Section 107.

7. From the report of Sultan Singh, ASI it is clear that the dispute between Petitioner and Respondent No. 4 was in respect of possession of the property. Petitioner was claiming to be in possession of flat No. 198, Swastik Kunj on the basis of Power of Attorney and an agreement, while Respondent No. 4 was claiming it to be in her possession. Even if the property belonged to Respondent No. 4, she had admitted that Petitioner had lived in flat No. 53, Swastik Kunj with her even when her husband was alive. It is also evident that original documents and agreement was in custody of Petitioner. Respondent No. 4 was not living at flat No. 198, Swastik Kunj but had gone there with so called labours and the Petitioner found that his lock had been broken. It is also undisputed from the documents placed on record that it was Petitioner, who gave a call at '100' to police and made a complaint about breaking open the lock by Respondent No. 4. Thus, clearly the proceedings should have been initiated against Petitioner and Respondents under Section 145 Cr.P.C. Though police has power to initiate proceedings under Section 107 Cr.P.C. as well, but one is bound to consider if on being threatened of forcible dispossession, a person calls police, does he commit breach of peace. If informing authorities is breach of peace, then better people settle their dispute without seeking police help. Moreover, it was Respondent No. 4, who had gone to the flat and broken the lock. She was not booked under Section 107/151 Cr.P.C. and only Petitioner was booked under Section 107/151 Cr.P.C. It is evident that the Petitioner was wrongly arrested and booked under Section 107/151 Cr.P.C. and was wrongly sent to jail. The detention of the Petitioner was illegal. In view of specific provisions of Section 145 Cr.P.C., the police should have initiated proceedings against both under Section 145 Cr.P.C. and if required under Section 107 Cr.P.C. The attitude of police only fortifies the claim of the Petitioner that the police was in league with Respondent No. 4 and was helping Respondent No. 4 to recover possession from the Petitioner, forcibly.