HC comes to the rescue of NRI in property dispute

The High Court has ruled that the police officers are entitled only to take action against the criminal element of the civil dispute and not to interfere with the civil dispute itself.

Police officers should not usurp judicial functions of adjudication or to summon and force persons to resolve their inter-se civil disputes in a particular manner under the guise of 'family counselling.'

Justice Ramesh Ranganathan made this ruling in a plea by GBC Raj Gopal, NRI software engineer from USA, seeking directions to the police officers concerned not to call him to their office in respect of claimed disputes raised by his sister, a widow, regarding the signing of prepared documents so as to relinquish his share in the devolved properties in favour of his sister.

As for facts of the case, the petitioner, a green card holder, has come to Hyderabad from USA on Sept 11, 2013. His sister who was staying in Malakpet, had approached the SR Nagar police station on Nov 14 claiming to be a resident of Ameerpet. DCP, West Zone and Inspector of Police concerned called the petitioner and pressurized him to subscribe his signature to the already prepared documents without disclosing the contents thereof. First he was asked to come to the police station and was taken to the office of the DCP West Zone at AC Guards.

On Nov 19 last year, as was directed the petitioner again went to the said office and the DCP informed him that a complaint was lodged against him by his sister with the SR Nagar police station and it was not necessary to disclose the contents of the complaint to him, and he should effect a settlement and divide the properties with his sister.

The petitioner told the DCP that neither had he committed any offence nor were there any questionable antecedents against him, except the alleged complaint said to have been lodged by his sister. Thus he could not be asked to make himself available at the office of the DCP more so for division of properties between him and the respondent (his sister) which was a civil dispute in which the police had no right to interfere.

Then his sister, who was present in the office, started demanding that he give up his right, interest and share in properties. When the petitioner declined, the police officer asked him to affix his signature on prepared documents and stamp papers. When he demanded to know its contents, the officer sternly instructed him to obey orders and do as he was told, otherwise criminal cases would be instituted preventing him from leaving the country.

As the petitioner offered resistance to various pressures at the hands of his sister and her henchmen, his sister was surreptitiously putting the office of the DCP to use, meting out threats of implicating him in false criminal cases in the event he refused to yield to her illegal demands that he give up his share and entitlement in the devolved properties.

The petitioner then approached the high court complaining against the police officers concerned. Meanwhile, a complaint was given by his sister and a FIR was registered against him with the SR Nagar police station for offences under Sections 323, 506 and 509 IPC. Section 323 IPC relates to voluntarily causing hurt and is a non-cognizable offence, while Section 506 IPC which relates to criminal intimidation, is also a non-cognizable offence. But the Section 509 IPC relates to an offence of insulting the modesty of any woman etc., and is a cognizable offence.

When the matter came up for hearing, the court, prima facie, was of the view that the petitioner could not have visualized that a complaint would be lodged against him by his sister on the next day in the above police station against whose officials he had levelled grave and serious allegations.

It appeared that a concocted complaint was hurriedly registered prior to the day of listing of the matter before the high court. Action of the respondent police officers is illegal and unauthorized, and has resulted in violation of petitioner's fundamental rights.

The court found contradictions in the statements made by her from time to time. Besides, the officers concerned did not bring the incident to the notice of higher police authorities fearing a backlash.

Justice Ramesh Ranganathan found that no record also appears to have been maintained regarding the 'Counselling sessions' (which the petitioner was forced to participate) held at the office of the DCP.

The judge made it clear that ''Just as the courts would not undertake investigation of criminal offences, as these are matters in the exclusive realm of the investigating agency, the powers conferred and the duties cast upon the police officers, under the Criminal Procedure Code, is only to register complaints regarding cognizable offences and investigate there into; and not adjudicate even criminal cases, much less resort to settlement of civil disputes.''

The judge said, in the present case the DCP concerned has donned the robes of a judge in adjudicating property disputes between the petitioner and his sister.

While disposing of the case, the judge made it clear that the said officer shall not be involved either directly or indirectly in investigation of the case or be consulted in the preparation and finalisation of the final report. The judge imposed `10,000 on the DCP to be paid to the state legal services authority.

As for the other officer involved in the case, the judge said it would suffice to 'warn' the Inspector of Police to desist from indulging in such acts in future.