Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI
Brijesh Sethi, J.
D.K. Chopra - Appellant
Versus
South Delhi Municipal Corporation - Respondent
W.P.(Crl.) 2078 of 2019
Decided On : 27-11-2019
A party seeking equitable relief must fully disclose relevant facts. Suppression of material facts leads to rejection of petitions under Article 226, emphasizing the need to pursue appropriate legal remedies.
Headnote:(A) Constitution of India - Article 226 - Criminal Procedure Code - Section 482 - The petitioner sought directions to the State for action against police personnel and to remove illegal construction - Allegations of harassment, theft, and false complaints were made against the respondents - Court held that the petitioner did not seek relief through the appropriate legal channels and has suppressed material facts in his submissions. The petition was consequently dismissed on the grounds of having not come to the court with clean hands, emphasizing the importance of truthful disclosure in petitions. (Paras 26-29)
(B) Petitioner's conduct - The principle of 'clean hands' requires that a party seeking equitable relief must come to court with full disclosure of relevant facts. Suppression of material facts can result in dismissal of the petition even if the merits are strong. (Para 27)
Facts of the case:
The petitioner, a retired government employee, alleged harassment and illegal activity by neighbors and sought legal redress through a writ petition, but failed to disclose his own illegal actions involving construction. Various incidents, including a theft and legal disputes with neighbors, were cited. (Paras 2-12)
Findings of Court:
The court found that the petitioner had engaged in unauthorized construction and emphasized the need for full factual disclosure. The court stated that the petitioner failed to pursue available legal remedies through appropriate channels such as the Magistrate under Section 156(3) CrPC. (Paras 26-30)
Issues: The primary issues revolved around whether the petitioner had properly pursued remedies for his complaints and the implications of his conduct on his petition's legitimacy. (Paras 14-19)
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the petitioner's suppression of material facts regarding his own illegal actions precluded him from equitable relief and emphasized that appropriate channels must be pursued for grievances against police conduct or illegal construction. (Paras 26-31)
Result: Petition dismissed.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. petitioner claims harassment and illegal activities. (Para 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6) |
| 2. petitioner alleges property damage and threats. (Para 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12) |
| 3. petitioner asserts violation of rights. (Para 13 , 17 , 20) |
| 4. state's response to petitioner's claims. (Para 14 , 15 , 16) |
| 5. background on prior complaints and police actions. (Para 19 , 21 , 22 , 25) |
| 6. court denies relief due to lack of unclean hands. (Para 26 , 29 , 31) |
JUDGMENT
Brijesh Sethi, J. Vide this Judgment, I shall dispose of a petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India read with Section 482 CrPC for direction to State to take action against the guilty officers not registering case against respondent no.3 and his associates and to direct the State to register case against Head Constable Sunil and Devendri for giving wrong complaint/statement against the petitioner for attempt to tear cloths and rape as well as direction to respondent no.1 to remove illegal construction carried out on the terrace by respondent no.3.
2. It is submitted that the petitioner is a retired Central Government GO and residing at Flat No. 1039, Sector A, Pocket A Vasant Kunj, New Delhi-110070 with his family. Respondent no. 3 Sh. Rajeev Kumar keeps harassing him by stopping his way by standing before his house on common Stairs. He has fixed three Cameras one at his own house near gate, Second at Stairs of 1038 facing petitioner's house and third on newly constructed room blocking passage of water, air exist of petitioner at terrace facing petitioner terrace.
3. Respondents no. 2,3 & 4 i.e. State (NCT of Delhi), Mr. Rajeev Kumar and SHO, Kishan Garh Police Station, Katwaria Institutional Area, New Delhi had also arranged a theft at petitioner's residence on 28.01.2008 with the help of one Rakesh, a car cleaner on the direction of the then Chief Commissioner Kalkata Sh H.K. Saran. The said Rakesh was again caught stealing goods from petitioner's terrace but was saved by Respondents no 3 and respondent No. 4.
4. It is submitted that Abhya Sood resident of flat No. 1033 is business partner of Rajeev, respondent no.3. It is submitted that Rajesh Kathoria of Flat No. 1035 who is also partner of Rajeev i.e. respondent No. 3 had blocked the petitioner's toilet waste pipe intentionally which was got rectified through MCD after 70 days of struggle.
5. It is submitted that Respondent No. 3 used his mother to book a false case of attempt to rape upon the petitioner on 12.2.2019. However, the same was not accepted by Respondent No. 4. It is further alleged that Respondent No. 3 with the help of Respondent No. 4 has blocked his camera, TV, light and was instrumental in theft of his goods. It is further submitted that due to illegal construction carried out on terrace all drainage system was blocked by respondent no. 3 in connivance with respondent No. 1, 2 and 4 and respondent no. 1 has not taken any action against illegal construction carried out by respondent No. 3 by using his terrace.
6. It is next submitted that the petitioner had also met respondent No. 1 DC on 25.7.2019 but without any positive result. It was prayed that directions be issued to register cases against all those persons who are guilty of not taking any action against his complaints and departmental action be also ordered against delinquent officers.
7. After conclusion of arguments, the petitioner also filed written submissions and submitted that encroachment and illegal construction has been carried out by occupants of house number 1033, 1035, 1037. It is further alleged that about fifteen years back Rajeev and Devendri, Respondent no. 2 and 3 respectively had broken the petitioner's tubelight and CCTV camera. On 28.01.2008, during the day, a major theft had taken place at the Petitioner's house. Police had refused to file the FIR. The ACP who had registered the FIR after 5 days was immediately transferred. Later on Respondent No.4 filed status report stating that police was unabl
