{"id":54809,"date":"1998-11-05T00:00:00","date_gmt":"1998-11-04T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/vijay-khanna-anr-vs-union-of-india-ors-on-5-november-1998"},"modified":"2016-02-13T21:41:44","modified_gmt":"2016-02-13T16:11:44","slug":"vijay-khanna-anr-vs-union-of-india-ors-on-5-november-1998","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/vijay-khanna-anr-vs-union-of-india-ors-on-5-november-1998","title":{"rendered":"Vijay Khanna & Anr. vs Union Of India & Ors. on 5 November, 1998"},"content":{"rendered":"
Delhi High Court<\/div>\n
Vijay Khanna & Anr. vs Union Of India & Ors. on 5 November, 1998<\/div>\n
Equivalent citations: 1999 IAD Delhi 277, 1999 CriLJ 1275, 78 (1999) DLT 619, 1999 RLR 117<\/div>\n
Author: K Gupta<\/div>\n
Bench: Y Sabharwal, K Gupta<\/div>\n<\/p>\n
<\/pre>\n
ORDER<\/p>\n
K.S. Gupta, J. <\/p>\n
1.      Petitioner  No. 1 is the husband of petitioner No. 2. They filed  this
\npetition  under Article 226 of the Constitution initially in  October  1994 seeking writ of mandamus for directing the Union of India, respondent No. 1 and  Lt.  Governor of Delhi, respondent No. 2 to  institute  an  independent inquiry  into the actions taken by the other respondents in collusion  with one another against the petitioners and their family members. Direction was further  sought  to the respondents particularly Nos. 16 &  17  to  restore possession of house No. E-224, Sainik Farm, New Delhi, to the  petitioners. On March 28, 1995 Shri Vipin Sanghi, Advocate appearing for the petitioners made  statement  that the petitioners do not press the first  part  of  the prayer  as made in the writ petition. By the judgment dated April 12,  1995 the  petition  was dismissed in limine by a Division Bench of  this  Court.Feeling aggrieved, petitioners filed Crl. Appeal No. 629\/97 (arising out of SLP  (Crl.) No. 1327\/96) in the Supreme Court which was disposed of by  the order dated July 15, 1997 observing as under:-\n<\/p>\n
       “On  the  pleadings of the parties and the documents  adduced  to support their respective claims, the High Court instead of  going into  the question whether the appellants were in peaceable  possession  wherefrom  they  were disturbed, went  on  to  pronounce against them, doubting their title and holding them disentitle to the  property  because  the Sainik Farms  Colony  was  supposedly unlawful and the land under the colony had since been acquired by the State under the provisions of Land Acquisition Act. It  transpires  that  the  view of the High Court that  such  land  stood acquired  by  the State was factually wrong. On  the  other  hand determining  or  pronouncing on the question of  title  in  these proceedings  was  totally uncalled for. What the High  Court  was required to do was to go into the question whether the appellants were in peaceable possession and had been disturbed in the manner alleged and in the light of the judgment of this court in Manohar Lal  Vs.  State of Punjab, AIR 1971 PLJ  338,  grant  appropriate relief  to the appellants, if fue. The inquiry as  undertaken  by the High Court having gone off the track would warrant a  remand. We would not on our part like to usurp that function of the  High Court  which it was required to perform having admitted the  writ petition  and  calling for responses from  the  respondents.  We, therefore, upset the impugned order of the High Court and  remand   the  matter back to its file for reconsideration in the light  of the aforesaid observations as well as in accordance with law.”\n<\/p>\n
 2.   After remand on the application filed by the petitioners for  impleadment and amendment of cause title the name of deceased N.K. Jain,  respondent  No.  12,  was deleted from the array of the parties  and  M.S.  Rathi, Inspector of Police, J.P. Meena, Inspector of Police, Raj Kumar,  Inspector of Police, Anil Soni and Mrs. Madhu Soni were imp leaded as respondent 17 to 21 respectively.\n<\/p>\n
 3.   In the amended writ petition it is, inter alia, alleged that petitioner No. 2 purchased plot of land bearing No. E-224, measuring 500  sq-yards,in Sainik Farm in 1991 and thereafter she got constructed a house  consisting  of  ground and first floors thereon. The total built up  area  of  the house  is  about 8500 sq. yards and the total cost of construction  was  in excess  of Rs. 30 lacs. Rajiv Gupta, respondent No. 13, a neighbour of  the petitioners introduced petitioners sometime in March 1993 to Pritpal  Singh Chauhan  @  Ganju Chauhan, respondent No. 7, Balbir Singh Chauhan  @  Bibba Chauhan, respondent No. 8, Ranjit Singh Chauhan @ Pointy Chauhan, respondent No.  9,  all brothers (hereinafter referred to as’Chauhan  Brothers’)  and owners of Chauhan Jewellers having their showrooms at Karol Bagh and  South Extension Part-II, to help them identify a business partner overseas  since petitioner  No. 1 had vast contacts overseas which he had developed over  a period  of  18  years. Petitioner No. 1 introduced Abdul  Razak,  an  Iraqi national based in Jordan with whom he had business dealings in the past.\n<\/p>\n
 4.   It  appears that in relation to the business transacted  between  said Abdul  Razak  and  Chauhan Brothers, former delivered a  cheque  for  US  $ 2,50,000  in  the name of respondent No. 7. This cheque was drawn  on  Citi Bank,  Aman, Jordan. However, on account of certain disputes between  Abdul Razak  and  Chauhan  Brothers the latter were unable to  encash  the  above cheque.  It is stated that from June 1993 onwards Chauhan Brothers  started visiting  petitioner No. 1 and desired that he should make payment to  them of US $ 2,50,000 in Indian currency in cash since the cheque issued by said
\nAbdul  Razak could not be encashed by them. They also  informed  petitioner No.  1  that the said money in fact belongs to Additional  Commissioner  of Police  (North), P.R.S. Brar, respondent No. 4 who was personal  friend  of respondent No. 7. Petitioner No. 1 declined the demand as he had nothing to do  with the transactions between Chauhan Brothers and Abdul  Razak.  Petitioner  No. 1 was told that neither Chauhan Brothers nor respondent  No.  4 would spare him in case he did not cough out the said money. It is  alleged that  on August 11, 1993 D.P. Singh, the then Chowki Incharge, Police  Post Sainik Farm, visited the petitioners’ house at E-224, Sainik Farm, at 11 AM and  again at 7 PM alongwith two constables to convey to petitioner  No.  2 that the petitioners should pay the said amount to Chauhan Brothers.  Raghbir  Singh,  ACP, Greater Kailash, New Delhi, alongwith  D.P.  Singh  again visited  the  house of the petitioners on August 12,  1993  and  threatened petitioner  No.  2  with dire consequences in case the  demand  of  Chauhan Brothers was not met. Petitioner No. 1 was out of India on a business  trip at that time. Raghubir Singh, ACP, S.K. Rathi, SHO, P.S. Ambedkar Nagar and D.P.  Singh again visited the house of the petitioners on August  17,  1993 accompanied by nine constables and the purpose of their visit was to  pressurise the petitioners into acceding to the demand of Chauhan Brothers  and respondent No. 4 to pay the said money. On August 18, 1993 a false case FIR No.  324\/93 for electricity theft was registered against petitioner No.  1. On August 19, 1993 Raghubir Singh, ACP, visited the house of the  petitioners three times and issued threat that in case they failed to pay the  said amount to Chauhan Brothers and respondent No. 4 they would face dire consequences. Again on August 22, 1993 D.P. Singh came to the petitioners’ house and  issued  similar threat to petitioner No. 2. Fed up  with  the  illegal visits and threats held out by the police authorities the petitioners filed Criminal  Writ  Petition  No. 673\/93 on September  13,  1993  (Annexure  3) against the said police officials and notice thereof was issued to them. In response  to  said  Crl. Writ Petition which came to be  withdrawn  by  the petitioners  counsel stating no instructions from the client, the  respondents did not specifically denied their visits to the house of the petitioners but sought to take the cover of the F.I.Rs alleging theft of electricity.\n<\/p>\n
 5.   It is further alleged that a notice dated January 14, 1994 was  served upon the petitioners in connection with inquiry into the complaint made  by M\/s. Chauhan Jewellers. In terms of the notice petitioners were required to attend  the  office of the Inspector, Crime Branch, Section V,  5th  Floor, Police Headquarters, New Delhi, on January 17, 1994 at 2 PM.  Subsequently, on February 23, 1994 an F.I.R. bearing No. 78\/94 under Sections 120-B & 420
\nIPC  was registered at P.S. Karol Bagh on the basis of the said  complaint. It  was alleged that on June 26, 1993 petitioners visited the  showroom  of Chauhan   Brothers  at  Karol  Bagh  and  purchased  jewellery  worth   Rs. 3,68,825\/-.  Petitioner No. 1, as director of M\/s. R.V. Consultants  (Pvt.) Ltd. issued two cheques aggregating Rs. 2,50,000\/- drawn on UCO Bank, ASIAD Village  Branch  and on presentation the cheques were  dishonoured.  It  is stated  that the petitioners were desirous of purchasing  adjoining  vacant plot falling in Khasra No. 456, Village Khirki. Rajiv Gupta, respondent No. 13, a friend of petitioner No. 1 had offered to negotiate with the owner of that  plot on behalf of the petitioners. Petitioner No. 1 being  in  export business  remained out of country continuously for long stretches to  time. While reposing complete faith in respondent No.13 he delivered sometime  in May\/June  1992 two blank cheques which did not bear the name of the  drawee and  the date to enable respondent No. 13 to finalise the  transaction  for purchase  of  plot with it s owner. However, the transaction could  not  be concluded  and  the  two cheques remained with respondent  No.  13.  It  is claimed  that  two cheques on the basis of which the aforesaid  F.I.R.  No. 78\/94 was lodged by Chauhan Brothers, were procured by them from respondent No.  13.  It  is emphatically denied that petitioners  either  visited  the showroom of Chauhan Brothers at Karol Bagh or purchased jewellery worth Rs. 3,68,825\/- as alleged.\n<\/p>\n
 6.   In  November 1993 one Shunty, Commission Agent of woollen and  leather goods operating in Gandhi Nagar who had been dealings with petitioner No. 1 for  over one year introduced petitioner No. 1 to R.S.  Jindal,  respondent No.  10. Respondent No. 10 expressed capability to procure  finished  goods i.e.  woollen  garments to meet the export orders of petitioner  No.  1  to Russia.  Two shipments of woollen garments worth Rs. 7 to 8 lacs were  sent by  respondent No. 10 to petitioner No. 1 for export to Russia.  Respondent No.  10 drew two cheques for Rs. 3,00,000\/- and 31,000\/- in favour  of  the petitioners’ company – Viva Exports which were dishonoured on  presentation on  account  of insufficient funds. petitioner No. 1 has now come  to  know that  respondent  No.  10 was introduced in a calculated  move  by  Chauhan Brothers to know more about petitioner No. 1 and his family for the purpose of  implicating  them in false cases. On April 2, 1994 in  relation  to  an export  order which the petitioner No. 1 had to fulfill, respondent  No.  10 desired that petitioner No. 1 should visit him to meet a socks’ manufacturer who could supply the socks for export to Russia. One K.K. Jain of Kanpur
\nwho  was  staying with petitioner No. 1, also accompanied him to  meet  respondent No. 10. On reaching respondent No. 10’s office at A-34,  Connaught Place  around 3 PM the respondent No. 10 introduced petitioner No. 1  to  a gentleman as manufacturer of socks. Later on it transpired that person  was Prithvi Singh, Inspector Crime Branch, respondent No. 6 and not a  manufacturer  of socks. Respondent No. 10 suggested that petitioner No.  1  should see  the factory where the socks are manufactured. Petitioner No. 1  alongwith  K.K.  Jain left with said Prithvi Singh in a car. Respondent  No.  10 followed them in his car. Instead of taking petitioner No. 1 to factory  he was  taken  to the office of the Crime Branch at Adarsh  Nagar.  Within  20 minutes  of petitioner No. 1 reaching there Chauhan Brothers  also  arrived there.  Petitioner No. 1 was then informed that an F.I.R. being No.  196\/94 under Section 420\/467\/471 & 34 IPC dated April 2, 1994 has been  registered
\nat  the  instance of respondent No. 10 against both  the  petitioners  with Police Station Connaught Place. Accusation made against the petitioners  in the  F.I.R. was that no December 13, 1993 petitioner No. 2  approached  respondent  No. 10 with an F.D.R. for about Rs. 6 lakhs in the name of  Vinay Kumar  claiming to be the son of the petitioners, obtained a loan of Rs.  4 lakhs which he claims to have paid partly by cheque for Rs. 3.90 lakhs  and partly in cash of Rs. 10,000\/-. Petitioner No. 2 is further alleged to have visited respondent No. 10 on January 28, 1994 with another F.D.R. of  about Rs.  6  lakhs in the name of Vinay Kumar and she received Rs,  75,000\/-  by cheques  and Rs. 2,25,000\/- in cash. It is stated that cheques in  question were not encashed by the petitioners nor any amount in cash as claimed  was paid  by respondent No. 10 to petitioner No. 2. Petitioner No. 1  later  on learnt  that  respondent  No. 10 is a share broker  operating  for  Chauhan Brothers and is a family friend of theirs.\n<\/p>\n
 7.   On April 3, 1994 while petitioner No. 1 was in custody at Adarsh Nagar Crime  Branch,  Ganju  Chauhan, respondent No. 7 armed with  a  pistol  and accompanied by four others visited the house of the petitioners around 8.30 PM  and forcibly took away the cheque book of ‘Trend Take  Enterprises’,  a proprietorship concern of petitioner No. 1, of an account in Oriental  Bank of Commerce, Saket. At pistol point they obtained signatures of  petitioner No. 2 on blank and stamped papers. Report with regard to this incident  was lodged by petitioner No. 2 with Police Post Sainik Farm in the early  morning  on  April 4, 1994. It is alleged that respondent No. 7 came  to  Crime Branch  Office  at  Adarsh Nagar around 10.30 PM and with the  aid  of  the police officials forcibly obtained the signatures of petitioner No. 1 on 16 blank cheques for an amount of Rs. 5 lakhs each from the said cheque  book. These 16 cheques worth Rs. 80 lacs were taken for the purposes of  extracting from petitioner No. 1 amount equivalent to US $ 2,50,000 payment where of  Chauhan Brothers had been pressurising by the petitioners  since  long. Later on by a telegram ‘stop payment’ instructions were issued by petitioner  No. 1 to the bank at the earliest possible opportunity while he was  in custody.\n<\/p>\n
 8.   It  is  further  alleged that petitioner No. 1 had  been  remanded  to police custody on April 4, 1994 and his remand period was to come to an end on  April 7, 1994. The police authorities and Chauhan Brothers  were  still working to somehow involve petitioner No. 1 in other false case to  prolong his  police  remand. Accordingly, on April 7, 1994 F.I.R.  No.  200\/94  was registered  at Police Station R.K. Puram under Sections 420\/467\/471  &  120
\nIPC  at  4.10 PM against petitioner No. 1 on the complaint  of  V.K.  Goel, respondent  No. 11. It is claimed in that F.I.R. that petitioner No. 1  was introduced  to him by N.K. Jain (respondent No. 12), Chartered  Accountant, and  on March 2, 1994 petitioner No. 1 gave a bank draft to respondent  No. 11  dated February 24, 1993 issued by Chemical Bank, Los Angels,  USA,  favouring  N.K.  Gupta payable at Citi Bank, Madras, for US $ 10,000.  It  is further stated that petitioner No. 1 met respondent No. 11 at Hyat  Regency Hotel,  New Delhi, on March 2, 1993 and gave Rs. 1,20,000\/- in cash and  he further  gave Rs. 2,40,000\/- to said N.K. Jain for petitioner No.  1.  Said bank  draft was, however, found to be forged and petitioner No. 1 had  thus cheated  respondent No. 11. Said F.I.R. was used by the Police  Authorities to  prolong  the police remand of petitioner No. 1. Petitioner  No.  1  was remanded  by Sh. D.C. Anand, Magistrate, at his residence at 9.45  PM  with the  direction to the police to produce petitioner No. 1 before  Shri  V.K. Jain,  Magistrate, on April 8, 1994. On being produced before Shri Jain  on that  date petitioner No. 1 was remanded to police custody upto  April  10, 1994. On April 10, 1994 he was sent to judicial custody by the Duty  Magistrate.\n<\/p>\n
 9.   Petitioners  have  learnt that in the month of April 1994  F.I.R.  No. 132\/94  under Sections 506\/406 IPC was registered at Sadar Thana,  Saharan-\n<\/p>\n
pur,  against Vikas Khanna and petitioner No. 1. Neither petitioner  No.  1 for Vikas Khanna ever visited Sharanpur. Further action by Delhi Police  on this  F.I.R. was stalled by the office of the Lt. Governor in the month  of June 1994.\n<\/p>\n
 10.  It is further stated that on April 14, 1994 Chauhan Brothers and their associates with the active collusion of the Police Authorities took  forcible  possession  of the ground floor of the petitioners’  house  at  E-224, Sainik  Farm. Petitioner No. 1 was under arrest while petitioner No. 2  and Vikas  Khanna  were  on the run due to warrants against them.  Later  on  , petitioners were shocked to learnt that the intruders had forged and fabricated  a rent note in respect of the ground floor of the said  property  in favour  of  Lal Chand Sharma, respondent No. 15 by petitioner No.  2  dated March 30, 1994 at a monthly rent of Rs. 1600\/-.\n<\/p>\n
 11.  On  April 22, 1994 another false F.I.R. bearing No. 138\/94 under  Section  420\/467\/471\/120B  IPC  was got registered at  Police  Station  Hazrat Nizammuddin by Chauhan Brothers through B.S. Chhabra, respondent No. 12.\n<\/p>\n
 12.  It  is  pleaded that petitioner No. 2 who was arrested  on  April  25, 1994, was bailed out on May 16, 1994. She visited the house on May 21, 1994 after recovery from shock and trauma and was aghast to see that the  entire house No. E-224, Sainik Farm, was occupied by K.N. Bhardwaj, respondent No. 16 and his family members. On inquiry petitioner No. 2 was told by respondent No. 16 that the house was purchased by him under a sale deed dated  May 18, 1994.\n<\/p>\n
 13.  On  June 2, 1994 petitioner No. 2 personally met the Lt. Governor  and narrated him the whole sequence of events. She also gave to the Lt.  Governor a representation dated June 2, 1994. On June 15, 1994 petitioner No.  2 also met Shri Rajesh Pilot, the then Minister of State (Internal Security). She submitted a written note to him. Petitioners further represented to the Home Secretary regarding harassment meted out to them by the police. On the basis  of  written complaint of petitioner No. 2 case. FIR No.  259\/94  was registered  and on the representations made by the petitioners to  the  Lt.\n<\/p>\n
Governor  as well as to the Ministry of Home Affairs the  investigation  of the  said case was entrusted to CBI who has submitted charge sheet  against respondents 7 to 9, 14 to 16 and others.\n<\/p>\n
 14.  In  the reply affidavit filed on behalf of respondents 2, 3, 4, 5,  6, 17,  18 & 19, S. Vasudeva, Dupty Commissioner of Police HQ(II),  Delhi  has stated  that on 21st May, 1994 petitioner No. 2 lodged a complaint at  P.P. Sainik  Farm alleging that Kedar Nath Bhardwaj\/respondent No. 16 has  illegally  taken possession of the first floor of house No. E-224, Sainik  Farm besides  removing the household articles. On the basis of that complaint  a cause  under Sections 448\/380\/34 IPC was registered at P.S. Ambedkar  Nagar
\nvide  FIR  No.  259\/94, During investigation of the case  said  Kedar  Nath Bhardwaj  produced  agreement to sell, will, affidavit,  special  power  of attorney  and arbitration agreement etc. He also obtained status quo  order in respect of the said house on 28th May, 1994 from the Civil Court at  Tis Hazari.  Petitioners made representations to various authorities  including respondents 1 & 2 and the Chief Secretary, Government of NCT of Delhi after examining the complaint made by the petitioners and finding that the  allegations  have been made against the Additional Commissioner and  the  other police  officials,  requested the Home Secretary, Government  of  India  to transfer  the investigation of the case to CBI. On receipt of  request  the CBI registered a case vide RC No. 19(S)\/94 on 7th November, 1994 and  after completion of investigation chargesheet No. 26\/95 dated 4th December,  1995 has been filed in the Court of the concerned Metropolitan Magistrate at New Delhi against Pritpal Singh, Balbir Singh, Rajender Singh, Lal Chand  Sharma, Kedar Nath Bhardwaj, Raj Kumar, Om Prakash, Vinod Gogia, Pankaj  Malhotra  and  Smt.  Lavely  Kalra  under  Section  120-B  read  with   Sections
\n420\/467\/468\/471\/380\/448\/384  IPC. In the charge sheet CBI has  stated  that
\nallegations  against SI Raj Kumar, SI J.P. Meena and Inspector  M.S.  Rathi have  not been substantiated. However, Sh. N.K. Goel,  Metropolitan  Magistrate has taken cognizance against SIs Raj Kumar, J.P. Meena and  Inspector M.S. Rathi under Sections 448\/380 read with Section 120B IPC and  summoned
\nthem and the case is pending trial now before Sh. Brijesh Sethi, Metropolitan Magistrate. Case FIR Nos. 196\/94 under Sections 420\/467\/471\/34 IPC P.S.
\nConnaught Place, 138\/94 under Sections 420\/467\/471\/120-B\/34 IPC P.S. Hazrat
\nNizamuddin, 78\/94 under Sections 420\/120-B IPC P.S. Karol Bagh are  pending
\ninvestigation  against  the petitioner, by the CBI.  Petitioners  are  alsoinvolved  in case FIR Nos. 137\/94 under Sections 406\/420\/468\/471\/120-B  IPC
\nP.S. Lajpat Nagar, 77\/93 under Section 379 IPC and 39 Electricity Act  P.S.
\nAmbedkar  Nagar, 324\/93 under Section 379 IPC and 39 Electricity  Act  P.S.
\nAmbedkar Nagar, 109\/94 under Sections 341\/324\/34 IPC P.S. Inder Puri, 97\/97
\nunder  Sections 420 IPC P.S. C.R. Park, 388\/97 under  Sections  420\/468\/471
\nIPC P.S. Connaught Place and 79\/97 under Section 380 IPC P.S. Vasant Vihar. It is further stated that P.R. S. Brar, Additional Commissioner of  Police, Northern  Range  (respondent No. 4) was having no control  over  the  Crime branch  at the relevant time. Respondents 20 & 21 are presently in  occupation of aforesaid house No. E-224.\n<\/p>\n
 15.  In  his  reply affidavit Pritpal Singh Chauhan\/respondent  No.  7  has denied that petitioner No. 1 introduced one Abdul Razak and that he entered into  any business transaction with said Abdul Razak or Abdul Razak  delivered any cheque to him as alleged. It is further denied that he ever visited  or  pressurised petitioner No. 1 for payment of any  amount  for  which Abdul  Razak had issued any cheque. It is also denied that he in  collusion with  the other respondents dispossessed the petitioners from house No.  E224  or  fabricated any rent deed etc. in favour of respondent  No.  16  as alleged.  It is stated that FIR bearing No. 78\/94 under Section 120-B  read with Section 420 IPC was lodged by him at P.S. Karol Bagh on 23rd February, 1994 against the petitioners. Out of the total amount of Rs. 3,68,825\/-  of the  jewellery purchased by the petitioners they paid Rs. 18,825\/- in  cash and  handed  over two cheques worth Rs. 2,50,000\/- dated 20th  June,  1993. They further stated that they will pay Rs. 1,00,000\/- to his representative but  they  failed to make that payment. Respondent No. 7  has  emphatically denied that he visited the house of the petitioners on 3rd April, 1994  and
\nforcibly took away any cheque book or obtained the signatures of petitioner No.  2  on blank or stamped papers. He further denied that he  visited  the Crime branch office at Adarsh Nagar and with the aid of the police  personnel forcibly obtained the signatures of petitioner No. 1 on cheques. It  is also  denied that the persons in occupation of the petitioners’ house  were in any way connected with him.\n<\/p>\n
 16.  Balbir   Singh   Chauhan\/respondent   No.   8   and   Rajendra   Singh Chauhan\/respondent No. 9 have filed separate reply affidavits on the  lines similar to that of the reply affidavit filed by respondent No. 7.\n<\/p>\n
 17.  In his reply affidavit R.S. Jindal\/respondent No. 10 has justified the lodging  of  case FIR No. 196\/94 under Sections 420\/467\/471 IPC  dated  2nd
\nApril,  1994, P.S. Connaught Place against the petitioners. It  is  further stated  that he has no concern whatsoever with house No. E-224 nor  has  he ever been in possession thereon.\n<\/p>\n
 18.  Rajiv  Gupta\/respondent No. 13 in the reply affidavit has denied  that two  cheques  as alleged by the petitioners were given to him and  that  he dishonestly passed on those cheques to Chauhan Brothers.\n<\/p>\n
 19.  Lal  Chand Sharma\/respondent No. 15 in the reply affidavit has  denied that he in any way colluded with the other respondents in dispossessing the petitioners from house No. E-224 as alleged. It is stated that he was taken as  a tenant by the petitioners on the ground floor of the said house on  a monthly rent of Rs. 1,600\/- and a receipt dated 30th March 1994 was  issued by  petitioner No. 2. It is admitted that he filed suit No. 114\/94  against Rajiv  Gupta\/respondent No. 13 in the Court of Senior Sub Judge, Delhi  and that  Kedar Nath Bhardwaj\/respondent No. 16 also filed a suit  bearing  No. 165\/94 against him.\n<\/p>\n
 20.  In  his  reply  affidavit Kedar Nath Bhardwaj\/respondent  No.  16  has stated  that he purchased house No. E-224 from petitioner No. 2 for a  consideration of Rs. 5,00,000\/- and the requisite documents were duly executed by her in the presence of Notary Public. After payment of entire amount  of the sale consideration petitioner No. 2 handed over the peaceful possession of  the  said  house. At the time of the purchase of the  house  Lal  Chand Sharma\/respondent No. 15 had been in possession as a tenant. It is  further stated  that he sold the said house to Madhu Soni &  Anil Soni\/respondents and  executed special power of attorney, general power of attorney,  agreement  to  sell,  will, letter of possession etc. in  their  favour  besides handing over possession of the house to them.\n<\/p>\n
 21.  Anil  Soni and Madhu Soni\/respondents in their joint  reply  affidavit have averred that respondent No. 21 purchased house No. E-224 from respondent  No. 16 and now they are in peaceful possession thereof. Power  to  restore  possession  of the said house vests with the  Criminal  Court  under Section 456 Cr.P.C. and this Court would not exercise power of  restoration in  exercise  of  the writ jurisdiction. It is further  stated  that  after purchase  they  have made considerable improvements in the  house.  By  the order dated 26th October, 1995 Sh. G.P. Mittal, Metropolitan Magistrate has declined to restore the possession of the house in favour of the  petitioners and the petitioners have admittedly not resorted to civil remedy  seeking possession of the said house.\n<\/p>\n
 22.  Sh. Dhruv Mehta appearing for petitioners has submitted that as  petitioners  were illegally dispossessed from house No. E-224, Sainik  Farm  on 14\/26th April, 1994 by respondents 15 & 16 in collusion with other respondents including the police authorities, the possession thereof is liable  to be restored to them. Strong reliance has been placed on a decision in  Smt. Anju Devi Vs. Commissioner of Police & Ors., 1994(2) CRIME 691.\n<\/p>\n
 23.  Sh.  Rajiv  Dutta for respondents 7 to 9 has contended that  the  fact whether the petitioners were in possession of the house in question  before they  were  allegedly dispossessed, is a question of fact which  cannot  be gone into in writ jurisdiction by this Court. As a part of this  contention he  has  also  submitted that all the acts complained of  are  criminal  in nature and for redressal thereof the remedy is provided elsewhere.\n<\/p>\n
 24.  Sh. S.S. Gandhi appearing for respondents 1 to 6 & 17 to 19 has urged that name of P.R.S. Brar\/respondent No. 4 neither figures in Criminal  Writ Petition  No. 673\/93 filed by the petitioners earlier nor in the  complaint dated 15th June, 1994 made by them to Sh. Rajesh Pilot, the then State Home Minister  (Internal Security) (Annexure 27) or the statement of  petitioner No.  2 dated 21st May, 1994 on the basis whereof case FIR No. 259\/94,  P.S. Ambedkar  Nagar  was registered. According to him, in case FIR  No.  259\/94 wherein  charge  sheet has been submitted, CBI has found  that  allegations against  respondents  17 to 19 have not been substantiated  nor  were  they imp leaded as respondents at the time this petition was filed initially. The allegations  made in the petition against the police authorities  including the said respondents are, therefore, without any basis.\n<\/p>\n
 25.  Sh.  R.K.  Anand, Sr. Advocate appearing for respondents 20 &  21  has submitted that only in rarest cases possession can be restored back in writ jurisdiction  and  as the dispute in this case is in  between  the  private parties  the remedy available to the petitioners was either to  have  filed suit for possession under Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act or initiated
\nproceedings under Section 145 Cr.P.C. Question of restoration of possession can  be considered under Section 456 Cr.P.C. by the Court before whom  case
\nFIR No. 259\/94 is pending trial. He has further submitted that the  conduct of  the petitioners is not above board and respondents 20 & 21 who are  the bona  fide purchasers for valuable consideration of the house in  question, cannot be asked to hand over vacant possession thereof to the petitioners.\n<\/p>\n
 26.  Shri.  Satish  Aggarwal for respondent No. 16 has contended  that  the prayer  made by the petitioners for restoration of possession for the  time being  was  turned down by the order dated 26th October, 1995 by  Sh.  G.P. Mittal,  Metropolitan  Magistrate.  Petitioners may again  move  the  Court before whom case FIR No. 259\/94 is pending trial for seeking restoration of the  possession. According to him, respondent No. 16 now does not have  any interest in the house as he has sold it and delivered possession thereof to respondent No. 21.\n<\/p>\n
 27.  Sh. Atul Batra appearing for respondent No. 13 has opposed the  restoration  of  possession  of the house in favour of the  petitioners  on  the grounds  similar to that taken on behalf of other sets of private  respondents.\n<\/p>\n
 28.  Needless  to repeat that as per the order of the Supreme  Court  dated 15th  July, 1997 this Court has to examine whether the petitioners were  in peaceable possession of the house in question and had been disturbed in the manner  urged  by them. Pursuant to the order dated 28th  March,  1995  the petitioner No. 1 filed his affidavit on 5th April, 1995. In paras 3 & 4  of this affidavit it is stated that the land admeasuring 10 Biswas falling  in khasra  No.  456, Khirki, Tehsil Mehrauli was initially owned by  Net  Ram, Bhim Singh, Tej Ram & Gian Singh and the same was sold by them under a sale deed  dated 18th November, 1981 to one Smt. Jaishree. Smt. Jaishree  subsequently assigned the said land in favour of Anil Kapoor under a deed  dated 30th  September,  1988. Anil Kapoor executed agreement to sell  dated  11th November,  1991 in respect of the said land in favour of petitioner  No.  2 and  after receipt of the entire sale consideration she was put in  possession of the land by him in part performance of that agreement. Anil  Kapoor also executed will and general power of attorney which were duly registered in the office of the Sub Registrar in favour of petitioner No. 2. Alongwith the  affidavit photostat copies of the sale deed dated 18th November,  1981 executed  by Net Ram & three others in favour of Smt. Jaishree,  assignment deed dated 30th September, 1988 executed by Smt. Jaishree in favour of Anil Kapoor,  general power of attorney, agreement to sell, and possession  letter,  all  dated 11th November, 1991 executed by Anil Kapoor in  favour  of petitioner  No. 2, have been filed. Case of the petitioners is  that  after purchase of the land from Anil Kapoor, house consisting of ground and first floors was got constructed by them. Peaceable possession of the petitioners over  said  house No. E-224 before they were  allegedly  dispossessed  thus cannot be disputed. Moreover, Lal Chand Sharma\/respondent No. 15 claims  to have  been inducted as a tenant on the ground floor of the aforesaid  house by  petitioner No. 2. Kedar Nath Bhardwaj\/respondent No. 16 too  claims  to have  been  put  into possession of the accommodation  other  than  in  Lal Chand’s tenancy by petitioner No. 2 on 18th May, 1994.\n<\/p>\n
 29.  Coming to the alleged dispossession, petitioners allege  dispossession from the ground floor portion of the house by respondent No. 15 and  others on 14th April, 1994 while from first floor portion by respondent No. 16 and others  on  26th April, 1994. In para No. 2 of the petition  it  is,  inter alia, alleged that after purchase of piece of land, measuring 500  sq.yds., in 1991, petitioner No. 2 got constructed two strayed house thereon  having built up area of approximately 8500 sq.ft. and the total cost of  construction of house in 1991-92 was in excess of Rs. 30,00,000\/-. By way of annexure-1  petitioners have filed alongwith the petition copy of the  statement made before the Income-tax Authority declaring the cost of construction  of the  house.  In annexure-1, Rs. 28,00,000\/- have been shown  to  have  been incurred towards cost of construction besides Rs. 1,40,000\/- being purchase price of the land underneath the house. It is a matter of common  knowledge that in the year 1994 there had been substantial increase in the prices  of the  land and building in Delhi. Respondent No. 16 is claimed to have  purchased  the aforesaid house from petitioner No. 2 on 18th May, 1994  for  a consideration of Rs. 5,00,000\/-. Ordinarily, one would not sell his property of the value exceeding Rs. 30 lacs for a sum of Rs. 5 lacs.\n<\/p>\n
 30.  On the basis of the complaint lodged by petitioner No. 2 on 21st  May, 1994  case  FIR No. 259\/94 was registered at P.S. Ambedkar  Nagar  and  the investigation  thereof  was  subsequently made over to CBI. It  is  not  in dispute that CBI on 14th January, 1995 conducted a raid at the  residential premises in possession of respondent No. 16 at house No. A-5\/67, Sector-16, Rohini  and  therefrom it recovered as many as 162 items belonging  to  the petitioners.  These  items include household  articles,  wearing  apparels, electrical  gadgets and furniture etc. Copy of the search-cum-seizure  memo is placed on pages 212 & 216. In the statement of respondent No. 16 recorded on 13th August, 1998 as also during the course of arguments stand  taken by  respondent No. 16 is that alongwith the house he had purchased all  the furniture  and whatever was lying in the house including the  clothings  as well. However, the agreement to sell dated 18th May, 1994, (photostat  copy placed  on the file) allegedly executed by petitioner No. 2  favouring  respondent No. 16, is conspicuously silent that alongwith the said house  No. E-224 articles as shown in the said memo were also sold. There is also  not the slightest whisper about the sale of the articles noted in the said memo in the reply affidavit dated 27th January, 1998 of respondent No. 16. It is pertinent  to note that in the said memo there is mention of one note  book of Modern School, Vasant Vihar at item No. 70, 75 memorandum of articles of association of R.V. Consultants (Pvt.) Ltd. of petitioner No. 1 at item No. 151,  one  cheque book of account No. 5-033617-005 containing  cheque  Nos. 623464,  65, 68 to 70 in the name of petitioner No. 2 of Citi Bank at  item No.  156, one passport size photograph of petitioner No. 2 at item No.  157 and  one letter pad in the name of petitioner No. 1 at item No. 160.  These items  possibly could not have been sold by petitioner No. 2 to  respondent
\nNo. 16.\n<\/p>\n
 31.  Further, averments made in the charge sheet in case FIR No. 259\/94 (on pages 405 to 410) disclose that the rent agreement, special power of attorney in favour of respondent No. 16, general power of attorney in favour  of R.K. Bhardwaj, attornment letter dated 18th May, 1994, agreement to sell in favour  of respondent No. 16, affidavit dated 18th May, 1994,  receipt  for Rs. 3,00,000\/-, will dated nil attested by Public Notary on 18th May,  1994 and  arbitration agreement dated nil attested on 18th May, 1994,  all  purported to have been executed and signed by petitioner No. 2 and handed over by  respondent No. 16 to CBI together with the Notary register signed by  a lady  as  Smt. Radha Khanna were sent for obtaining opinion  to  Government Examiner  of Questioned Document, Shimla and as per its report  dated  29th June,  1995  on  page 412, none of the aforesaid documents  or  the  Notary register were signed by petitioner No. 2. Respondent No. 16 alleges to have been put in possession of the aforesaid house excepting the portion in  the tenancy of respondent No. 15, pursuant to the aforesaid documents by  petitioner No. 2 on 18th May, 1994.\n<\/p>\n
 32.  Circumstances referred to above prima facie go to show that respondent No.  16 came to occupy the first floor portion of the said house not  as  a result of sale thereof to him but in the manner alleged by the petitioners. Discrepancy in regard to mode of payment of the alleged sale  consideration amount to petitioner No. 2 in the statements of respondent No. 16  recorded on 13th and 18th August 1998 further raises suspicion about the genuineness of the transaction.\n<\/p>\n
 33.  At  the cost of repetition, it may be stated that claim of  respondent No.  15  is  that he was inducted as a tenant on 30th March,  1994  in  the ground floor portion of the aforesaid house by petitioner No. 2 on a monthly rent of Rs. 1,600\/- for a period of three years and together with  three months advance rent, Rs. 1,00,000\/- were paid by way of refundable security by him. Rent note and the receipt are also stated to have been executed  on the said date by petitioner No. 2. However, the petitioner No. 2 denies  of having  let the said portion of the house to respondent No. 15 or  to  have
\nreceived  Rs.  1,04,800\/- and executed rent note and receipt,  as  alleged. According  to  her, rent note and the receipt have been fabricated  on  the papers  on which her signatures were forcibly obtained by respondent No.  7 and five persons accompanying him in the night on 3rd April, 1994 regarding which a report was lodged by her on 4th April, 1994 with P.P. Sainik  Farm. Be  that  as it may, one would not expect the letting of  one  office  furnished,  one drawing room furnished, one verandah and one bathroom  on  the ground  floor of the aforesaid house in March 1994 on a paltry sum  of  Rs. 1,600\/-  per month. Prima facie respondent No. 15 seems to have  trespassed into the ground floor portion of the house as alleged by the petitioners.\n<\/p>\n
 34.  On  the role allegedly played by the police authority, only two  documents  need  to be referred – Criminal Writ Petition No.  673\/93  filed  by petitioner  No. 2 against the Delhi Administration and others and the  D.O. dated 20th October, 1995 sent by Sh. K. Padamnabhaiah, the then Home Secretary,  Government of India to Sh. K. Vijay Rama Rao, Director CBI.  In  the above writ petition dated 9th July, 1993 Raghubir Singh, Additional Commissioner of Police, Greater Kailash, S.K. Rathi, S.H.O., P.S. Ambedkar  Nagar and D.P. Singh, Incharge, P.P. Sainik Farm, Ambedkar Nagar, were  imp leaded as respondents 3 to 5 respectively. A writ of mandamus was sought directing respondents 3 to 5 not to interfere with the right of privacy of petitioner No.  2  and her family and not to enter the petitioners’  house  except  in accordance  with  law.  Direction was further sought to  respondent  No.  2 Commissioner  of  Police to use his administrative power to keep  the  said three respondents within the limits of their authority. In short, the  case set up by petitioner No. 2 in the petition was that she and the members  of her  family were being harassed unnecessarily by respondents 3 to  5.  Said D.O.  dated 20th October, 1995 speaks volumes about the petitioners’  being subjected  to  gross  abuse of power by Delhi Police  and,  in  particular, P.R.S.  Brar\/respondent  No. 4. The manner in which  the  petitioners  were dispossessed  from their house No. E-224 coupled with the allegations  made in  the above petition and contents of the D.O. prima facie point out  that the  concerned police officers were in hand in glove with the  persons  who dispossessed them. In view of the respondents 17 to 19 facing trial in case FIR No. 259\/94 we refrain from commenting further in the matter.\n<\/p>\n
 35.  This brings us to the main argument advanced on behalf of some of  therespondents  that as alternate remedy in law is available to the  petitioners,  possession  of aforesaid house No. E-224 cannot be restored  to  them under  the  extraordinary  writ jurisdiction. Identical issue  came  to  be considered  in Smt. Anju Devi’s case (supra) rendered by a  Division  Bench whereof one of us (Y.K. Sabharwal, Actg.C.J.) was a member. In para No.  13 of the decision which is relevant it was observed thus:-\n<\/p>\n
     “13.  In the light of the aforesaid facts the court is not  help less  in coming to the aid of the petitioner simply  because  the  suit  filed by her for possession is pending in the civil  court. The  suit was filed by the petitioner during the pendency of  the   writ petition since limitation period of six months was  expiring and  if not filed suit would have become time barred. It is  only  in exceptional cases and sparingly this court would direct delivery  of  possession while exercising  extraordinary  jurisdiction  under  Article 226 of the Constitution but we cannot  accept  the
\n     argument that this court has no such power. When the facts are so glaring as in the present case the court is not powerless and has  rather  obligation and duty to direct restoration of  possession. The  availability of other efficacious remedy knowing  well  that the  said  remedy i.e. suit will take  considerable  time  cannot always  be  used  as a weapon of defense to deny  relief  to  the   aggrieved  person. It is true that generally power under  Article 226  would  not be used as a substitute for  the  enforcement  of  rights  and  obligations  which  can  be  enforced  efficaciously through  the ordinary process of courts, civil and  criminal  but there  is no bar in exercise of that power and where and when  it is  required  to  be exercised would depend upon  the  facts  and  circumstances of each case. The present case is not of two  individuals, one having dispossessed the other, but is a case where a  helpless  lady  has been thrown out of the house where,  she  was living for about four years, in whatsoever capacity, as a  result  of collusion and connivance of the police. In such circumstances, this court, to do complete justice between the parties, has  wide and ample powers to pass appropriate orders including orders  for restoration  of possession. On the facts like the present  it  is  the  duty  of the court to come to the aid of person who  is  oppressed and is in disadvantageous position and, therefore, it  is  necessary to make innovations and forge new tools when atrocities are  committed by those who are required to enforce the  rule  of  law.  The alleged offender cannot be permitted to take  advantage of delay in justice delivery system. The contention that they may  have  prima facie committed the offence of trespass for the  purpose of registration of F.I.R., which may be registered, and that the law will have it own course after registration of the  F.I.R.  and  at  this stage no orders for delivery of possession  can  be      passed, cannot be accepted on the peculiar facts of this case. Of course, the criminal law will have its own course. Of course, the   suit would also be decided on its own merits and this order  will not prejudice parties in those proceedings but all this does  not   persuade  us  to deny the relief of putting the  petitioner  back into  possession. All situations are not alike. What  relief  deserves to be given in exercise of jurisdiction under Article  226
\n     cannot be placed in a rigid mould. It cannot be put in a straight jacket.  The  relief is to be moulded as the  facts  and  circumstances of the case and cause of justice may demand. We are  thus not  persuaded to deny to the petitioner the relief of being  put back  in possession of the premises in which she has been  living for  nearly  four  years prior to 30th August,  1993,  the  years  during which her husband and mother-in-law were admittedly living in separate premises. We are not concerned in this case with  the  question of title of the property but are concerned with the role of  the  police. Police has no right to take law into  their  own  hands.  On the facts and circumstances noticed herein-before,  it is  evidence that the police has taken law into their  own  hands  and dispossessed the petitioner in complete disregard of rule  of law.  The  action of the police has to be  just,  reasonable  and  fair.  The impugned action of the police shows complete  lack  of commitment to the society and rule of law. Within the  parameters  of law, the police has to come to the aid of needy, helpless  and the  victims. Some bad elements in the Police force bring  disrepute  to the entire force and good officials and officers,  which we  hope would be in large number, may also have to suffer  some-times  because of few bad elements in the service. The  time  has indeed  come for the Commissioner of Police to take stern action  against the erring officers\/individuals.  Such  officials have  to be made accountable for undue interference in  the  life  and liberty of the citizens. We hope that the Government and  the Commissioner of Police would think of ways and means of restoring  a high degree of confidence of society in police as such type  of interference  is increasingly coming to the notice of the  court.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     Some  officers in police force are required to be told  that  the aggrieved  person  cannot be treated the way the  petitioner  was  treated.  The facts are so glaring that it would shock  the  conscience of anyone.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
 36.  It  is alleged in the petition that in case FIR No. 196\/94  lodged  by R.S.  Jindal\/respondent No. 10, petitioner No. 1 was taken into custody  on 2nd April, 1994 while police obtained warrants of arrest against petitioner No. 2 on 4th April, 1994 and to avoid arrest petitioner No. 2 had fled away from the house. Evidently, trespass into aforesaid house No. E-224 was made on  14\/26th April, 1994 in the absence of the petitioners. The stand  taken by respondent No. 15 of his having been inducted as a tenant on the  ground floor as also the plea taken by respondent No. 16 of his having been delivered  possession of the entire house except the tenanted portion, by  petitioner  No.  2 are supported by the said respondents on the  basis  of  the documents  which  are prima facie fabricated. Trespass into the  house  was committed prima facie in collusion with the police authorities.  Petitioner are out of possession of their valuable property for about 4-1\/2 years.  In such  circumstances, it is obligation and the duty of the Court  to  direct the restoration of the possession of the said house to the petitioners  and they cannot be non-suited on the ground of availability of alternate  remedy.\n<\/p>\n
 37.  Kedar  Nath  Bhardwaj\/respondent No. 16 in his statement  recorded  on 13th  August, 1998 has, inter alia, stated that respondent No.  15  vacated the  ground floor about 4-5 months after he purchased the house and  delivered possession thereof to him; that after about one year he sold the house to  Anil  Soni  and  Madhu Soni\/respondents  for  a  consideration  of  Rs. 5,00,000\/-  and handed over vacant possession thereof to  them.  Respondent No. 21, however, alleges to have purchased the house for Rs. 5,50,000\/-. As noticed earlier, submission made on behalf of respondents 20 & 21 has  been that  they being bona fide purchasers for valuable consideration cannot  be dispossessed  from the house in these proceedings; that the conduct of  the petitioners  who are involved in a number of criminal cases of forgery  and cheating etc., is not above board and the dispute in question being between private parties, disentitle the grant of discretionary relief as claimed to the petitioners. Respondents 20 & 21 derive their right, title and interest in the aforesaid house from respondent No. 16. They cannot have the  rights more than what respondent No. 16 was having in the house. Since the possession  of  respondent No. 16 over the aforesaid house was  itself  unlawful, respondents 20 & 21 cannot resist the handing over of the possession there of to the petitioners of the ground of their being bona fide purchasers for valuable  consideration. In our opinion, on the facts and circumstances  of the  present case, neither the alleged antecedents of the petitioners  have any relevance whatsoever in the matter nor is it a case of dispute  between two individuals. It will not be out of place to state that power to restore possession of immovable property under Section 456 Cr.P.C. can be  resorted
\nto  by  the  Court only after recording the finding of  guilt  against  the accused and the decision in case FIR No. 259\/94 is likely to take couple of years  time. Taking note of the ratio in Smt. Anju Devi’s case (supra)  and the facts and circumstances of the case, the petitioners deserve to be  put back into possession of their house No. E-224.\n<\/p>\n
 38.  For the foregoing discussion, the petition is allowed. We order restoration of status-quo ante and direct the police authorities to put back the petitioners  into possession of the aforesaid house within two  weeks  from today.  Respondents 20 & 21 are directed to cooperate and not to  interfere in  delivery of possession to petitioners. The resistance, if any,  by  respondents  20 & 21 or any other person(s) shall strictly be dealt  with  by the police in accordance with law.\n<\/p>\n
 39.  We  may make it clear that nothing contained in this order  will  have any  bearing in any criminal case initiated at the instance of  or  against any  of the parties to this petition or any other criminal and  civil  proceedings between the parties.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Delhi High Court Vijay Khanna & Anr. vs Union Of India & Ors. on 5 November, 1998 Equivalent citations: 1999 IAD Delhi 277, 1999 CriLJ 1275, 78 (1999) DLT 619, 1999 RLR 117 Author: K Gupta Bench: Y Sabharwal, K Gupta ORDER K.S. Gupta, J. 1. Petitioner No. 1 is the husband of petitioner No. […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[14,8],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-54809","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-delhi-high-court","category-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nVijay Khanna & Anr. vs Union Of India & Ors. on 5 November, 1998 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/vijay-khanna-anr-vs-union-of-india-ors-on-5-november-1998\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Vijay Khanna & Anr. vs Union Of India & Ors. on 5 November, 1998 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/vijay-khanna-anr-vs-union-of-india-ors-on-5-november-1998\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"1998-11-04T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2016-02-13T16:11:44+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"39 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/vijay-khanna-anr-vs-union-of-india-ors-on-5-november-1998#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/vijay-khanna-anr-vs-union-of-india-ors-on-5-november-1998\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Vijay Khanna & Anr. vs Union Of India & Ors. on 5 November, 1998\",\"datePublished\":\"1998-11-04T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-02-13T16:11:44+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/vijay-khanna-anr-vs-union-of-india-ors-on-5-november-1998\"},\"wordCount\":7876,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Delhi High Court\",\"High Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/vijay-khanna-anr-vs-union-of-india-ors-on-5-november-1998#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/vijay-khanna-anr-vs-union-of-india-ors-on-5-november-1998\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/vijay-khanna-anr-vs-union-of-india-ors-on-5-november-1998\",\"name\":\"Vijay Khanna & Anr. vs Union Of India & Ors. on 5 November, 1998 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"1998-11-04T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-02-13T16:11:44+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/vijay-khanna-anr-vs-union-of-india-ors-on-5-november-1998#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/vijay-khanna-anr-vs-union-of-india-ors-on-5-november-1998\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/vijay-khanna-anr-vs-union-of-india-ors-on-5-november-1998#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Vijay Khanna & Anr. vs Union Of India & Ors. on 5 November, 1998\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Vijay Khanna & Anr. vs Union Of India & Ors. on 5 November, 1998 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/vijay-khanna-anr-vs-union-of-india-ors-on-5-november-1998","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Vijay Khanna & Anr. vs Union Of India & Ors. on 5 November, 1998 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/vijay-khanna-anr-vs-union-of-india-ors-on-5-november-1998","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"1998-11-04T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2016-02-13T16:11:44+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"39 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/vijay-khanna-anr-vs-union-of-india-ors-on-5-november-1998#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/vijay-khanna-anr-vs-union-of-india-ors-on-5-november-1998"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Vijay Khanna & Anr. vs Union Of India & Ors. on 5 November, 1998","datePublished":"1998-11-04T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-02-13T16:11:44+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/vijay-khanna-anr-vs-union-of-india-ors-on-5-november-1998"},"wordCount":7876,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Delhi High Court","High Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/vijay-khanna-anr-vs-union-of-india-ors-on-5-november-1998#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/vijay-khanna-anr-vs-union-of-india-ors-on-5-november-1998","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/vijay-khanna-anr-vs-union-of-india-ors-on-5-november-1998","name":"Vijay Khanna & Anr. vs Union Of India & Ors. on 5 November, 1998 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"1998-11-04T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-02-13T16:11:44+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/vijay-khanna-anr-vs-union-of-india-ors-on-5-november-1998#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/vijay-khanna-anr-vs-union-of-india-ors-on-5-november-1998"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/vijay-khanna-anr-vs-union-of-india-ors-on-5-november-1998#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Vijay Khanna & Anr. vs Union Of India & Ors. on 5 November, 1998"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/54809","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=54809"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/54809\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=54809"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=54809"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=54809"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}