Full Judgment Text
$ 30
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
th
Decided on : 9 May, 2017
+ WP(CRL.) 2424/2014 and Crl. M.A. 18791/2014
KAMINI KHANNA ..... APPELLANT
Through: Appellant in person
versus
DELHI POLICE & ORS. ..... RESPONDENTS
Through: Ms. Richa Kapoor, ASC for R-1
&2/State with SI Rajesh Kumar Verma, PS
C.R. Park
Mr. Anil Soni, CGSC with Ms. Priyanka
Singh, Advocate for R-3
Mr. Neeraj Gupta and Mr. Sachin Garg,
Advocates for R-4 & 5
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.K.GAUBA
ORDER (ORAL)
1. This criminal writ petition seeks the following reliefs :-
“1. The issuance of appropriate directions, orders
or writs in the nature of mandamus or any other writ,
order or direction and or under section 482 Cr. PC to
quash order dated 10.10.2012, subsequent FIR booked at
CR Park police station 186/12 and the challan filed in
June 2013 against this FIR.
2. To further direct respondent no.1, 2 & 3 to take
disciplinary action against respondent no.6 and to punish
him as per law for demanding graft and for other
WP (Crl.) 2424/2014 Page 1 of 7
unlawful activities under Article 311 of the Constitution
of India and to further direct respondent no.1,2 & 3 to
issue a letter of sanction to prosecute the respondent no.6
and other officers who are involved in the conspiracy.
And to further direct the respondent no.1, 2 and 3 to strip
off all the rewards given to respondent no.6 by the Govt.
of India and by the most Hon’ble and respectable
President of India and to further drop the charges
against X-SHO CR Park Ajay Sharma.
3. The issuance of appropriate directions, orders or
writs in the nature of mandamus or any other writ, order
or direction and or under Section 482 Cr. PC ordering
the respondent no.1, 2 and 3 to immediately compensate
the petitioner through respondent no.4 and 5 for all
reliefs mentioned herein or in case respondent 1, 2 and 3
still want to inappropriately support the respondent no.4,
5 and 6 then respondent no.1, 2 and 3 should be able to
compensate petitioner for all the litigation cost, loss of
earnings (at an enhanced 20% increase per year from
what petitioner was earning in 2006), from Nov. 2006 to
present Nov. 2014 and any more additional time lost. To
further direct respondent 1, 2 and 3 to help petitioner get
the ownership / costs of her movable / immovable
property back from respondent no.4 and 5 and their
associates. Or in case respondent 1, 2 and 3 still want to
inappropriately support the respondent no.4 and 5 then
to further immediately compensate petitioner with a
house of equivalent size and value in the same area, and
an equal amount of covered area as the original house
alongwith costs for petitioner’s belongings. A job with
enhanced salary which should be calculated at the rate of
20% increase per year from the year 2006, compensation
of Rupees 1 Crore to be paid by respondent no.1, 2 & 3
or to pay through respondent no.4 & 5, or to pay jointly
for causing harm, misery, torture, mental torture,
physical pain, LOSS of 10 most valuable and best years
of petitioner’s LIFE and making her sleep on the
footpaths. That the respondent no.1, 4 and 5, 6 should be
WP (Crl.) 2424/2014 Page 2 of 7
tried for perjury, willful concealment of facts, submitting
false documents in the courts. Further to stay the sale of
the said house and the house should be sealed till a
definite decision is arrived at.”
4. Status report has been filed by the respondent / State through
SHO, Police Station C.R. Park. Respondent nos. 4 and 5, on notice,
have also appeared to resist the petition.
5. The petitioner filed the writ petition at hand by herself without
engaging any counsel. She has been appearing in these proceedings
making her submissions in person. By order dated 18.02.2016, an
amicus curiae was appointed to assist her in making appropriate
submissions. On 02.06.2016, however, it was brought to the notice of
the court that the petitioner had expressed lack of faith in the amicus
curiae . In this view, the following order was passed :-
“My attention has been invited to the order dated
25.05.2016 passed by the Learned Metropolitan
Magistrate, Saket Courts, New Delhi in FIR No.186/2012
registered at Police Station C. R. Park titled as State Vs.
Kamini Khanna. A perusal of the said order dated
25.05.2016 reveals that Ms. Kamini Khanna has expressed
her views before the concerned Court that she does repose
any faith in Amicus Curie Mr. Chetan Lokur and the
matter may be adjourned so that she may prepare herself
for arguments on charge. Ms. Kamini Khanna further
stated that learned Amicus Curie is having his own agenda
and is forcing her to go to a shelter home.
In view of the foregoing, without commenting on the
conduct of Ms. Kamini Khanna, learned Amicus Curie is
discharged from this matter. However, it would be
incumbent on my part to note that the learned Amicus
Curie had been appointed by this Court to assist Ms.
Kamini Khanna, who is admittedly an indigent and
WP (Crl.) 2424/2014 Page 3 of 7
homeless individual. Learned Amicus Curie had offered to
render all assistance to this Court and had also consented
to represent Ms. Kamini Khanna before the learned Trial
Court in the FIR No.186/2012 registered at Police Station
C. R. Park titled as State Vs. Kamini Khanna as
aforementioned, pro-bono.
In view of the foregoing, I do not wish to hear this matter.
Accordingly list this matter before some other appropriate
Bench according to Roster on 18.07.2016, subject to
obtaining necessary orders from Hon’ble the Chief Justice.
The matter is released from being part heard.”
6. When the matter came up for hearing, the petitioner was again
asked if she wished to be assisted by an advocate at State expense.
She declined the said offer stating she was educated and competent
enough to look after her interests and present her case in these
proceedings. During the course of submissions, she also stated in
chaste english that she had been earlier employed for about fifteen
years at a senior managerial level in a private company of repute with
good income and that she understands the law and the proceedings and
is able to make necessary submissions.
7. Having heard the petitioner at length, as indeed the learned
counsel for respondent nos.4 and 5, on one hand and the additional
standing counsel for the respondent / State who also represented
respondent nos.1 and 6, this court is of the opinion that the petition
lacks substance.
8. The prime contentions and the first relief relate to order dated
10.10.2012 passed by the Metropolitan Magistrate-09, South-east on
the file of complaint case no.405/2001 instituted by respondent no.4
WP (Crl.) 2424/2014 Page 4 of 7
who, it may be mentioned, is one of the siblings of the petitioner. It
appears the root cause of dispute between the petitioner and her
siblings has been the right, title and interest to the property left behind
by their father Mr. C.L. Khanna at the time of his death on
01.07.1991. It is the contention of the private respondents that Mr.
C.L. Khanna had died intestate and that in the course of developments
in its wake, the other legal heirs including the petitioner had
relinquished their respective share in the property by executing certain
documents. It is alleged by the private respondents that the petitioner
had illegally entered into the said property on 10.09.2012 demanding
share in the property and extending threats. Certain other events were
alleged, including removal of CCTV system in a complaint, seeking
registration of the FIR. It is pursuant to the said complaint that, by
order dated 10.10.2012, the Magistrate directed registration of the FIR
and pursuant to the said directions, FIR no.186/2012 came to be
registered in the local police station, though it is also pointed out that
the investigation taken up is for offences under Sections 341, 427,
428, 34 IPC allegedly committed by the petitioner, the inclusion of the
offence under Section 380 IPC having been set aside by the court of
sessions sitting in revisional jurisdiction, by order dated 17.01.2013.
The criminal case arising out of the above mentioned FIR is presently
pending consideration of the question of charge in the court of the
Metropolitan Magistrate.
9. In these circumstances, it will not be proper for this court to be
subjecting the allegations in the said FIR to scrutiny in the writ
WP (Crl.) 2424/2014 Page 5 of 7
jurisdiction so as to interfere with the order dated 10.10.2012 as is the
prayer in these proceedings.
10. The other reliefs essentially arise out of the registration of the
above mentioned FIR and denial of her due in the estate of the late
father of the petitioner and the private respondents on which account
the petitioner seeks, amongst others, compensation and right to a
residential property equal to the share of the private respondent. It
was brought out at the hearing that the petitioner had instituted a civil
suit, it being CS No.27/2013, which was dismissed upon being
withdrawn by her on 18.02.2013 by the court of Additional Senior
Civil Judge (South) at Saket. It also appears that the petitioner had
filed a petition for award of maintenance allowance against the fourth
respondent, the relief having been sought under Section 12 of the
Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act 2005. Her petition
CC no.1489/2003 was dismissed by order dated 26.05.2015 of the
court of the Metropolitan Magistrate-01, Mahila Courts at Saket, New
Delhi. It was also pointed out that the petitioner has filed a number of
complaint cases, some against the private respondents as well, they
including nos.CC/612923/2016, CC/617533/2016, CC/625133/2016,
CC/627235/2016, CC/613754/2016 and CC/615425/2016,
CC/616068/2016 and CC/615428/2016, which are pending in the
court of Chief Metropolitan Magistrate (South-east), Saket even as on
date.
11. The writ petition filed before this court seeking aforementioned
reliefs is found to be misconceived and misguided. It appears that the
petitioner is not conversant in law, substantive or procedural. She
WP (Crl.) 2424/2014 Page 6 of 7
insists on making her own presentation which is not in her best
interest. She may be an educated lady with some work experience.
But this, by itself, does not mean that she is able to bring out her
version coherently. In these circumstances, she would be well advised
to approach the Delhi State Legal Services Authority for necessary
legal assistance so that she is able to pursue the remedies to which she
may be entitled under the law properly and effectively.
12. Whilst giving to the petitioner liberty to approach the State
Legal Services Authority for aforesaid purposes, and towards such end
as stated above, these proceedings are hereby closed and disposed of
as no further directions at this stage are called for.
R.K.GAUBA, J.
MAY 09, 2017
yg
WP (Crl.) 2424/2014 Page 7 of 7