Blog

If the petitioner feels that an offence has been committed, then the correct remedy for the petitioner is to approach the competent court by filing an application under Section 156(3) CrPC. Court must not entertain writ petitions seeking direction to the Police for registration of an FIR and the complainants must be delegated to approach the competent court by filing the application under Section 156(3) CrPC and the same was upheld by High Court of Delhi through the learned bench led by Justice Subramonium Prasad in the case of YAMUNA BANK KISHAN BACHAO MORCHA vs. STATE OF NCT OF DELHI & ORS. [W.P.(CRL) 2035/2020] on 01.02.2022.

The facts of the case are that the petitioner is a society consisting of farmers who are inhabitants on the banks of river Yamuna for over the last 100 years and cultivating about 15,000 bighas of land. The writ petition mentions that the members of the petitioner Society have proof of ‘lagaan’ being paid by their forefathers since 1932 till 2012. It was stated that the Patwari and other policemen were torturing and harassing the farmers and were extorting money and extending threat to them.

The farmers received several letters from the DDA claiming that the members of the petitioner Society were unauthorised occupants and that DDA was the owner of the property. The petition was filed to restrain respondents from taking over the lands of farmers until investigation was completed.

The petitioner’s counsel stated that members of the petitioner Society are in occupation of the land for a number of years, even before DDA was constituted. He states that the members of the petitioner Society are the owners of the property and they can be evicted from the property only by authority of law i.e. by valid acquisition. He stated that the members of the petitioner Society have been paying tax to the DDA.

The respondent’s counsel contended that the DDA had issued notice under the PP Act and eviction orders were passed. It was submitted that the Delhi Peasants Co-Operative Multipurpose Society Ltd. are rank trespassers and encroachers and others who are claiming through them are also encroachers. She further stated that the National Green Tribunal had also directed that the agricultural activities also must not be carried out on the floodplains of Yamuna.

In view of the facts and circumstances of the cases, Court dismissed the writ petition as the petition was nothing but an abuse of the process of law and another attempt by the members of the petitioner Society to cling on to the land while they have already been held to be unauthorized occupants and encroachers.

The Court observed that, “writ petitions seeking direction to the Police for registration of an FIR and the complainants must be delegated to approach the competent court by filing the application u/s 156(3) CrPC. If the petitioner feels that an offence has been committed, then the correct remedy for the petitioner is to approach the competent court by filing an application under Section 156(3) CrPC. Court must not entertain writ petitions seeking direction to the Police for registration of an FIR and the complainants must be delegated to approach the competent court by filing the application under Section 156(3) CrPC.”

Click here to read the Judgment

Judgment reviewed by – Shristi Suman