Back
High Court Of Delhi
RENU SACHDEV - Appellant
Versus
COMM.B.S.REKHI - Respondent
CRIMINAL APPEAL 95 of 1985
Decided On : 10/23/1984
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CODE - SECTION 145 - JURISDICTION - DISPUTE OVER POSSESSION - ACTUAL POSSESSION - ATTACHMENT OF PROPERTY - POWER OF POLICE - RATIFICATION OF ILLEGAL ACT - SERVICE OF NOTICE BY ARBITRATOR - PUBLICATION IN NEWSPAPER - MISCONDUCT OF ARBITRATOR.
Fact of the Case:
A dispute arose over the possession of a property between two parties, Party No. 1 and Party No. 2. Party No. 1 claimed possession of the property through a sale agreement with the allottee, while Party No. 2 claimed joint ownership of the property. The police intervened and locked and sealed the premises to prevent a breach of peace. The SDM initiated proceedings under Section 145(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) to determine possession. The petitioner, a member of Party No. 1, challenged the SDM's order, arguing that there was no real dispute over possession and that the SDM had erred in assuming jurisdiction.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the petitioner had been in possession of the premises and that the second party was merely asserting a civil right of joint ownership. The court held that the SDM had erred in assuming jurisdiction under Section 145 of the CrPC as there was no real dispute over possession. The court also held that the police had no power to lock and seal the premises and that the SDM's subsequent ratification of this illegal act was无效.
Issues: 1. Whether the SDM had jurisdiction to initiate proceedings under Section 145 of the CrPC in the absence of a real dispute over possession. 2. Whether the police had the power to lock and seal the premises. 3. Whether the SDM's subsequent ratification of the police's illegal act was valid.
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that the SDM had erred in assuming jurisdiction under Section 145 of the CrPC as there was no real dispute over possession. The court held that the mere assertion of a civil right of joint ownership by the second party did not constitute a dispute over possession. 2. The court held that the police had no power to lock and seal the premises. The court held that only a Magistrate has the power to attach the disputed property under Section 146 of the CrPC, and that the police could not arrogate to itself the functions and powers of the Magistrate. 3. The court held that the SDM's subsequent ratification of the police's illegal act was无效. The court held that ratification of an illegal act of police or any other authority is unknown to criminal law.
Final Decision: The court set aside the SDM's order and quashed the subsequent proceedings based on it. The court directed the SDM to restore possession of the premises to the petitioner within a month.
( 1 ) THIS revision petition is directed against preliminary order passed by SDM New Delhi, u/s 145 (1), Code of Criminal Procedure ( the Code ) on 11th May 1984 thereby assuming jurisdiction to decide the question of possession with respect to premises No : N-32 Jangpura Extension, under the provisions of the said Section. The said order was made by the SDM on the basis of police report dated 21. 1. 84 made by police Post Jangpura and the material accompanying it.
( 2 ) THE facts leading to the aforesaid action of the learned SDM in brief are that a double room tenement No : 32 (Aandb), Block n , Jangpura Extension, was allotted to Charanjit Singh Rekhi s/o Shri Nand Singh Rekhi by the Estate Office, Govt of India, vide letter dated 8th/21st Sept, 1951. The said allotment was made consequent upon his eviction from quarter No : A-23/214, Lodi Road, which he was occupying earlier, on 11. 9. 51. Susequently the Managing Officer/ Settlement Officer, Government Built properties,
( 3 ) A perusal of the Kalendra submitted by ASI, R. K. Ranga to the SDM on 21. 1. 84 for initiation of proceedings u/s 145 of the Code would reveal that the said ASI proceeded to the property in dispute on receipt of a telephonic measage from the police control room at 4. 20 P. M. that a quarrel was going on, at Premises No: N-32 Jangpura Extension, opposite Eros Cinema. On reaching there he found S/shri Subhash Narula, a properly broker, Smt. Manjit Rekhi w/o Shri Charanjit Singh Rekhi, Harjit Singh, Surindar Sachdeva, husband of Smt. Renu Sechdeva (all called Party No. 1 collectively alongwith Charanjit Singh Rekhi and Smt. Renu Sachdeva in the Kalendra) and S/shri T. S. Rekhi S. S. Rekhi, both_ sons of Sh. Nand Singh Rekhi and H. S. Sarna, son in law of Nand Singh Rekhi, present in the drawing room of the said house. A little later Commander B. S. Rekhi s/o Nand Singh Rekhi too arrived there (all of them collectively termed as Party No. 2 in the Kalendra) Both the parties were quarrelling with each other and were asserting their claim of ownership over the property in dispute. Both the parties were out to fight and commit breach of peace. So, apprehending breach of peace on their part the police turned out both the parties from the house and put their own lock and seal on it.
( 4 ) IT is further stated in the Kalendra that on scrutiny of documents and inquiry conducted by the ASI it transpired that the property in question had been allotted to Charanjit Singh Rekhi by the Deptt. of Rehabilitation on 8. 9. 51 and that he had entered into an agreement dated25. 11. 83to sell the same to Smt. Renu Sachdeva and also delivered possession thereof to her excepting one room which was allowed to remain in the occupation of Harjit Singh, who was already occupying it as a care-taker on behalf of Charanjit Singh Rekhi. So, Smt. Renu Sachdeva had been in possession of the premises in question since then. However, on 21. 1. 84 when Harjit Singh was vacating the room in his occupation in order to shift elsewhere and he had removed some of his house-hold effects from the said room, S. S. Rekhi, T. S. Rekhi and H. S. Sarna arrived at the scene and asserted that they were co-owners of the property in dispute as the same belonged to the joint family comprised of eleven members including them and Charanjit Singh Rekhi and as such the latter alone was not competent to sell the same or pass on its possession to Smt. Renu Sachdeva, The ASI further stated that household effects belonging to Harjit Singh and Smt. Renu Sachdeva, which inter alia comprised beds, sofa set, chairs, table, refrigerator, almiraha, a cycle and other titbits were lying in the said house and the same were allowed to remain in the house when it was locked and sealed by the police. Alongwith the Kalendra the police submitted the statements of S/shri Surinder Sachdeva, Harjit Singh, Subhash Narula and Smt. Manjit Rekhi, which he had recorded at the spot. He also annexed thereto the statements made
AI
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
