IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Criminal Misc. No. M-14792 of 2008 Date of decision: 19th January, 2009 Jagbinder Singh … Petitioner Versus State of Punjab and others … Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA Present: Mr. B.S. Bhalla, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Anter Singh Brar, Deputy Advocate General Punjab for the State. Mr. Narender Yadav, Advocate for Mr. A.R. Takkar, Advocate for respondent No.4. KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA, J. (ORAL) Jagbinder Singh petitioner was in continuous litigation with his brother Ravinder Singh Batra. It is stated in the petition that order of status quo has been granted in favour of the petitioner by this Court in Regular Second Appeal No.936 of 2002 on 14th July, 2003. Petitioner claims that he is in possession of the entire property and the status quo order was subsisting when Ravinder Singh Batra gave an application to the SDM stating that he has to go abroad, therefore, the property in his possession be sealed. On the application (Annexure P-5) so filed, SDM issued a letter to the SSP Khanna. A true translated copy of the letter has been attached at page 29 of the petition and the same reads as under: “From Sub Divisional Magistrate, Khanna. To Senior Superintendent of Police, Khanna. Criminal Misc. No. M-14792 of 2008 No. 753/ Steno dated 21.5.2008 Subject: Regarding sealing of the residential house and building of Batra Nursing Home from 28.5.2008 till the return of the applicant from abroad. Dr. Ravinder Singh Batra had submitted on the above said subject matter that there is a litigation pending between him and his family members. Now he want to go abroad. He told that the Hon'ble High Court vide its order dated 29.5.2004 directed this office that the order dated 14.7.2003 regarding the status quo of the residential house and the building of the hospital is in his favour and should not be violated. He also submitted that since he is going abroad and therefore till his return the residential house and the Batra Hospital may be sealed. The copy of the application and copy of the order of the court is sent to you for the information and necessary action. Sd/- Sub Divisional Magistrate Khanna Date 21.5.2008” It is stated that on receipt of the application, SSP had marked the same to the DSP Khanna. DSP Khanna further down-marked the same to the SHO Police Station Khanna. Inspector Gurcharan Singh, SHO Police Station Khanna went at the spot and sealed the entire property. Grievance of the petitioner is that he was in possession of the property and on the application given on the wrong averment, his property has been sealed. Counsel for the complainant has controverted this fact and has stated that he was in possession of the property and therefore, he had a right to get the property sealed. This is a strange case, where parties are in civil litigation. What business police has got to intervene in the property dispute of the parties, which was a subject matter of the civil Court? This Court had called the SDM. He appeared in the Court and has stated that he had only 2 Criminal Misc. No. M-14792 of 2008 forwarded the application to the SSP. SSP had further marked the same to the DSP and DSP to the SHO. SHO has stated that in his presence, only respondent No.4 had sealed the property. Counsel for the petitioner has stated during the course of arguments that he was not allowed to enter in the house as the property had been sealed by the police and no body has come forward to own the action on the part of police that the property was sealed by them. Counsel has further submitted that when he made an attempt to enter in his house, case has been registered against him that he has broken the seals put up by the police. One thing is apparent that in present case, police had facilitated sealing of the premises. This was without following any proper procedure. On a query put to the State, Counsel for the State is unable to state, under which provisions of law or mandate or a Sanction, the police had accompanied Ravinder Singh Batra to seal the building, for which civil Court had issued an order of the status quo. The procedure adopted by the police is not only irregular, but patently illegal. Action of petitioner to protect order of status quo, cannot be held to be bad, therefore registration of FIR seems to be malafide. Since the petitioner has got the possession of the premises and has been implicated in case FIR, no relief can be granted to him in the present petition, however, he will be at liberty to seek quashing of FIR. The record, which was sealed on the previous date, be returned to the Investigating Officer. With these observations, present petition is disposed off. [KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA] JUDGE January 19, 2009 rps 3