Ranjit Singh Brar vs Union Territory Chandigarh

R.L. Anand, J. (Oral)

An unfortunate dispute between the landlord and tenant for a petty cause of water resulting in F.I.R. No. 91 dated 25.3.1997 registered under Section 430 I.P.C. at the instance of Smt. Aneel Kaur wife of Shri Ranjit Singh Brar against the present petitioner, who is seeking the quashment of the F.I.R. on the basis of the order dated 28.4.1997 passed in Civil Revision No. 1633 of 1997, came in the High Court against the order of the Rent Controller, who ordered for the restoration of the amenity being enjoyed by the respondent No. 2.

During the course of submissions before Hon''ble Mr. Justice V.K. Jhanji in Civil Revision No. 1633 of 1997 the following observations were made by his Lordship :

"On the basis of the undertaking given by the counsel on behalf of the petitioner, Mr. Bawa states that the F.I.R. which the respondent has got registered against the petitioner, will not be pursued. Mr. Bawa has also stated that the respondent shall use the courtyard for ingress and outgress to the basement where the respondent is carrying on her business."

It appears that the relations between the landlord and tenant became sour on a tap through which respondent No. 2 was drawing the water. Since respondent No. 2 gave a solemn undertaking before the High Court through her lawyer to the effect that she would not pursue the F.I.R., meaning thereby that she had no objection to the cancellation of the same. In this view of the matter, the present petition should succeed. Resultantly, I quash the F.I.R. No. 91 dated 25.3.1997 registered in Police Station Central, Chandigarh under Section 430 I.P.C. Otherwise also, it appears that this F.I.R. was the result of the dispute between the landlord and the tenant and in the interest of justice also this F.I.R. should be quashed.

During the course of submissions in this Court Smt. Aneel Kaur, respondent No. 2, who has appeared in person, states that she has the apprehension that in future the supply of the water might be curtailed or stopped by the petitioner and if the petitioner curtails or stops the supply of the water to the tap which has been installed at the base level, the business of the respondent is likely to suffer. Shri Jasbir Singh, Advocate, on the contrary, has stated before me that his client will not curtail or stop the supply of the water and it will be ensured that full flow of water must reach even to respondent No. 2. Otherwise also, the cause of the dispute is very petty. Water, air and light are the gifts of nature granted to the universe. On these small matters this court does not relish why the landlord and tenant are making their relations sour.

While allowing the petition and setting aside the F.I.R., this Court gives directions to the petitioner that he will not interfere in the supply of the water which is enjoyed by respondent No. 2. No further advice can be given to either of the parties. The petition is hereby allowed. All the consequential proceedings arising from this F.I.R. also stand quashed and directions are given to the Magistrate not to prosecute the petitioner.