CWP No.14450 of 2010 (O&M) [1] IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP No.14450 of 2010 (O&M) Date of Decision: 15.11.2011 Chand Kaur wife of Sh. Jagdish resident of Village Jondhan Kalan, Sub Tehsil Israna, District Panipat Haryana. ... Petitioner Versus State of Haryana through its Secretary, Haryana Civil Secretariat, Chandigarh and others. ... Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. KANNAN Present:Mr. D.S. Malik, Advocate for the petitioner. Ms. Kirti Singh, DAG, Haryana, for respondent No.1. Mr. Y.P. Malik, Advocate, for respondents No.2 and 3. ***** 1.Whether reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? NO 2.To be referred to the reporters or not? NO 3.Whether the judgment should be reported in the digest? NO K. KANNAN, J. (Oral) 1 The petition has been filed by the petitioner seeking for police protection for the property that belongs to her and her unmarried daughter. Her contention is that the respondents, who have no semblance of right are causing harassment and trouble to her. The principal contest in the application is entered by respondents No.4 to 13. The contention is, (i) the petitioner has already filed a petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. and it was dismissed; (ii) the petitioner has also filed a petition CWP No.14450 of 2010 (O&M) [2] under Section 145 of Cr.P.C. and the same is pending; (iii) the respondents No.12 and 13 have filed a civil suit claiming a share in the property on the ground that they are joint family members. 2. The petitioner's claim is as an owner. She is entitled to be in possession of the property but she is being harassed and threatened by her husband's second wife and daughter who lay false claim to the property as though they have joint ownership of the property. Prima facie, I am of the view that the private respondents No.12 and 13 cannot stake any claim in the property as the second wife or the child of the second wife to the property claimed by the petitioner. The right, if any, could only be exercised and will come to fruition only when the civil Court grants a decree to the respondents No.12 and 13 but they cannot secure for their support the assistance of police or others to disturb the entitlement and possession of person in respect of property that stands, admittedly, in the name of the petitioner, her daughter and or that stands in the name of her husband. If respondents No.12 and 13 have any right at all, they shall await the final adjudication of the civil Court and shall not force themselves on the petitioner to disturb her possession. 3. I do not think the dismissal of the application under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. has any relevance, for, it was one of summary dismissal that did not go to merits of the contention. 4. The pendency of the proceedings before the Executive Magistrate is also of no consequence, for, this Court's power under Article 226 are wide enough to sound vocal at the time when the authorities, who have to act remain silent. It is a case where the petitioner ought to be protected in her possession and the police officials among the respondents shall provide CWP No.14450 of 2010 (O&M) [3] appropriate protection to her to enjoy the property and to make a harvest of the crops, which is said to be ripe for harvest now. Any attempt of private individuals to disturb her possession shall be quelled by the police in accordance with law. 5. Although the issue of title in relation to immoveable property is not the subject that should enter an adjudication in a writ petition under Article 226, I have hastened to pass the order only to enforce the right to be protected in peaceful possession of what is seen so brazenly as sought to be disturbed by persons having no ex facie title or possession of the property. These observation are only for the purpose of this writ petition for extending police protection. The civil rights shall be decided independently, uninfluenced by the observation made in this order. 6. The writ petition is allowed. NOVEMBER 15, 2011 ( K. KANNAN ) Rajan JUDGE