SRI KAPTAN SINGH (DECEASED) THROUGH LRS.versusRAJINDER SINGH AND ANR.

A           SRI KAPTAN SINGH (DECEASED) THROUGH LRS.
                                v.
                     RAJINDER SINGH AND ANR.

                                AUGUST 3, 1995

B            [K. RAMASWAMY AND KS. PARIPOORNAN, JJ.]

          Constitution of India, 1950:

          Art. 136-Special leave jurisdiction-Disputed question offact-Con-
C troversy-Adjudication in an appropriate f ornm-Left open.
          The appellant filed a writ petition in the High Court seeking for a
    writ of mandamus directing the Commissioner of Police. or the appropriate
    authority to transfer his complaint to an independent police agency other
    than the local police. The High Court dismissed the writ petition. Hence
D   this appeal.

          Dismissing the appeal, this Court

           HELD: 1.1. The grievance of the appellant was that he was the owner
    of properties mentioned in the writ petition; when he was kept in the police
E   custody in connection with the crime imputed to him, some person holding
    himself to be his power of attorney was alienating his property and was
    inducting third parties into possession. Inspite of his repeated complaints
    made to .the authorities, after collusion of the local police in those ac-
    tivities, rio action was taken by the police officer. [513-D-E]
F         1.2. Earlier the local police had investigated and a report in that
    behalf was sent which would indicate that the dispute is one of acute
    disputed questions of fact. Under these circumstances, this Court cannot
    satisfactorily adjudicate the dispute in this appeal. Therefore, the con-
    troversy relegating the appellant's legal representative to have the matter
G   adjudicated in an appropriate forum is left open. [513-F-G]

          CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Contempt Petition No.175
    of 1994.
                             . In

H         Civil Appeal No. 7585 of 1995.
                                      512
                    KAPTAN SINGH v. RATINDER SINGH                           513

      From the Judgment and Order dated 3.11.92 of the Delhi High Court             A
in C.W.P. No. 3722 of 1991.

         Rakesh Tikku and Arun K. Sinha for the Applicant/Appellants.

         Ms. Shashi Kiran, B.K. Prasad and Arvind Minocha for the respon-
dents.                                                                              B
         The following Order of the Court was delivered :

         Leave granted.

      The appellant filed a writ petition in the High Court seeking for a           C
writ of mandamus directing the Commissioner of Police or the appropriate
authority to transfer his complaint dated April 23, 1991 for investigation by
an independent police agency other than the local police. The High Court
dismissed the writ petition summarily on November 3, 1992. Thus this
appeal by Special Leave.
                                                                                    D
       We have heard the learned counsel on both sides. Unfortunately the
appellant was done to death and the trail with regard to his murder is
pending decision in the appropriate Session Court. Therefore, we need not
go into the merits in that behalf. The grievance of the appellant-Late Sri
Kaptan Singh was that he was the owner of properties mentioned in the               E
writ petition; when he was kept in the police custody in connection with
the crime imputed to him, some person holding himself to be his power of
attorney was alienating his property and was inducting third parties into
possession. In spite of this repeated complaints made to the authorities,
after collusion of the local police in those activities, no action in that behalf
was taken by the police officer. It would appear that earlier to the com-           F
plaint made by the petitioner-appellant to the Commissioner of Police, the
local police seems to have investigated and a report in that behalf was sent
which now filed as Annexure 1 & 2 to the counter affidavit sworn by one
Aiok Kumar, D.C.P., South Delhi. It would indicate that the dispute is one
of acute disputed questions of fact. Under these circumstances, we cannot           G
satisfactorily adjudicate the dispute in this appeal. Therefore, we leave
open the controversy relegating the appellant's legal representative of Sri
Kaptan Singh to have the matter adjudicated in an appropriate forum. The
appeal is, therefore, dismissed but in the circumstances without costs.

G.N.                                                        Appeals dismissed.