Rakesh Sinha Vs. State and ors.

Rakesh Sinha vs State and ors.

Disposition Application dismissed Court Delhi Decided Sep 18, 1998

~5 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/704900

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

Citation: sooperkanoon.com/704900
Court: Delhi High Court
Judge: Devinder Gupta and; N.G. Nandi, JJ.
Decided On: Sep 18, 1998
Case Number: Crl. W. No. 478/98
Subject: Criminal
Disposition: Application dismissed

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

Service Law - Accommodation--Forcible resignation--Dispossession from accommodation provided by the employer--Writ petition seeking remedy of restoration as also registration of FIR--Complaint only to seeking return of luggage--Writ jurisdiction cannot be exercised for restoration of possession. - LABOUR & SERVICES...

Key legal issue: Criminal
Outcome / disposition: Application dismissed
Acts & sections: Service Law

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Rakesh Sinha

Advocate Bhupesh Narula, Adv

Respondent

State and ors.

Advocate S.S. Gandhi, Adv. for respondents Nos. 1 and 2

Legal References

Acts: Service Law
Cases Referred: Anju Devi v. Commissioner of Police and Ors.
Reported In: 76(1998)DLT533; 1998(47)DRJ595

Excerpt

.....annual leave at the time or at the place when and where the incident transpired. this is so because it is the causal connection which alone is relevant. fourthly, since travel to and fro the place of posting may not appear to everyone as an incident of military service, a specific provision has been incorporated in the pension regulations to bring such travel within the entitlement for disability pension if an injury is sustained in this duration. fifthly, it cannot be said that each and every injury sustained while availing of casual leave would entitle the victim to claim disability pension. sixthly, provisions treating casual leave as on duty would be relevant for deciding questions pertaining to pay or to the right of the authorities to curtail or cancel the leave. lastly, injury or death resulting from an activity not connected with military service would not justify and sustain a claim for disability pension. this is so regardless f whether the injury or death has occurred at the place of posting or during working hours. this is because attributability to military service is a factor which is required to be established......jurisdiction under section 226 can be exercised in appropriate cases for restoration of possession. it is also one of such cases where powers under article 226 of the constitution of india deserve to be exercised.6. having considered the facts, as disclosed in the petition with the accompanying documents and having gone through the aforementioned decision cited at the bar, we are of the view that it is not a fit case for exercise of extraordinary jurisdiction by this court for putting the petitioner back in possession of the premises. no such prayer for restoration of possession was made by the petitioner in his complaint dated 23.2.1998 (annexure-c). the only prayers made therein are for return of certain luggage, which according to the petitioner had not been restored to him and for revocation of the resignation letter. with respect to the so called forcible obtaining of resignation, the petitioner has already approached the competent authority, namely, the tribunal constituted under delhi education act for redressal of his grievance. the alleged school accommodation admittedly was in occupation of the petitioner only as licensee. till it is not held that his resignation was obtained by force or coercion etc., there can be no question of restoration of possession. in anju devi's case (supra), extraordinary jurisdiction was exercised in the peculiar facts of that case and that only when the court returned a finding that the police had played a role in the entire episode of putting the respondents therein in possession of the property, which act was held to be beyond jurisdiction. in the instant case, it is not the petitioner's case that possession was obtained by the school authorities from him with the help of police or by the authority having no jurisdiction. so long the resignation is not declared invalid, the petitioner will have no right to stay in the premises. as such, no direction deserves to be issued in this petition for restoration of.....

Full Judgment

Devinder Gupta, J.

1. In this petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India read with Section 482 Cr.P.C. instituted on 27.5.1998, direction is sought against respondents Nos. 1 and 2 to register a case against respondents Nos. 3 to 8 for the cognizable offences, alleged to have been committed by them and further to restore possession to the petitioner of the premises bearing No. 80/77-A Malviya Nagar, New Delhi.

2. The petitioner claimed that he had been working as a Music Teacher in Malviya Public School and was allotted the aforementioned school premises in December, 1992. He had been requesting the school authorities for increase in salary and to confirm his services, which was not done. After the death of B.K.Chawla in January, 1990, it is alleged that his sons, namely respondents Nos. 5 and 6 came to his premises Along with respondent No. 7 on 28th and 29th January, 1998 and threatened the petitioner that in case the premises are not vacated, he would be killed. A complaint to that effect was lodged with the police. The petitioner claims that apprehending danger to his life, on 1.2.1998 he left his home town Ghaziabad, after taking leave. On 7.2.1998, when he came back, he wanted to approach his residence, but was prevented by respondents Nos. 5 to 8. On the same day, a letter was sent to the Principal of the school for permission to remain on leave.

3. Again, on 9.2.1998, it is alleged that he tried to enter the premises, but was prevented from doing so. When the petitioner told the aforementioned respondents that he had come along with his brother to take his luggage and to vacate the premises, he found considerable luggage removed from the premises. On inquiry, the aforementioned respondents informed that the petitioner will have to sign on stamp papers and only thereafter the remaining luggage will be returned. The petitioner was handed over few papers. He could not understand as to what was written thereon. Not only the petitioner was made to sign, but signatures of his brother were also obtained. The petitioner states that in this manner, he was made to resign forcibly. As such, on 23.2.1998, the complaint (Annexure-C) was sent by the petitioner to Deputy Commissioner of Police, Crime Branch for registration of proper case and for return of luggage. When no action was taken and no case was registered, he had no option, but to approach the Court.

4. After show cause notice to respondents Nos. 1 and 2 only, Mr. Gandhi put in appearance on 13.8.1998 and a statement was made that FIR will be duly registered on the basis of the petitioner's complaint dated 23.2.1998 (Annexure-C) within a period of two days. In view of this statement, the two prayers did not survive for consideration. On that day, learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the petition would now survive for consideration with regard to the prayer for restoration of possession.

5. We have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Gandhi on behalf of respondents Nos. l and 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner placing reliance upon decision of this Court in Anju Devi v. Commissioner of Police and Ors., : 55(1994)DLT167 vehemently urged that extraordinary jurisdiction under Section 226 can be exercised in appropriate cases for restoration of possession. It is also one of such cases where powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India deserve to be exercised.

6. Having considered the facts, as disclosed in the petition with the accompanying documents and having gone through the aforementioned decision cited at the Bar, we are of the view that it is not a fit case for exercise of extraordinary jurisdiction by this Court for putting the petitioner back in possession of the premises. No such prayer for restoration of possession was made by the petitioner in his complaint dated 23.2.1998 (Annexure-C). The only prayers made therein are for return of certain luggage, which according to the petitioner had not been restored to him and for revocation of the resignation letter. With respect to the so called forcible obtaining of resignation, the petitioner has already approached the Competent Authority, namely, the Tribunal constituted under Delhi Education Act for redressal of his grievance. The alleged school accommodation admittedly was in occupation of the petitioner only as licensee. Till it is not held that his resignation was obtained by force or coercion etc., there can be no question of restoration of possession. In Anju Devi's case (supra), extraordinary jurisdiction was exercised in the peculiar facts of that case and that only when the Court returned a finding that the police had played a role in the entire episode of putting the respondents therein in possession of the property, which act was held to be beyond jurisdiction. In the instant case, it is not the petitioner's case that possession was obtained by the school authorities from him with the help of police or by the authority having no jurisdiction. So long the resignation is not declared invalid, the petitioner will have no right to stay in the premises. As such, no direction deserves to be issued in this petition for restoration of possession, as claimed. The petition stands disposed of.

Same Court & Year Delhi · 1998 Same Parties Rakesh Sinha vs State and ors. Same Subject Criminal Same Judge Devinder Gupta and; N.G. Nandi, JJ. Acts & Sections Service Law

Criminal