Anfragebeantwortung zu Indien: Verhalten der Polizei bei familiären Grundstückstreitigkeiten [a-9850-2 (9851)]

21. September 2016

Das vorliegende Dokument beruht auf einer zeitlich begrenzten Recherche in öffentlich zugänglichen Dokumenten, die ACCORD derzeit zur Verfügung stehen sowie gegebenenfalls auf Expertenauskünften, und wurde in Übereinstimmung mit den Standards von ACCORD und den Common EU Guidelines for processing Country of Origin Information (COI) erstellt.

Diese Antwort stellt keine Meinung zum Inhalt eines Ansuchens um Asyl oder anderen internationalen Schutz dar. Alle Übersetzungen stellen Arbeitsübersetzungen dar, für die keine Gewähr übernommen werden kann.

Wir empfehlen, die verwendeten Materialien im Original durchzusehen. Originaldokumente, die nicht kostenfrei oder online abrufbar sind, können bei ACCORD eingesehen oder angefordert werden.

 

Das Verfahren bei Streitigkeiten bezüglich unbeweglichem Vermögen und Grundbesitz ist in der indischen Strafprozessordnung (Code of Criminal Procedure, CrPC) von 1973 unter Kapitel X Abschnitt D geregelt. Artikel 145 gibt an, dass die Polizei einen Bericht an einen Exekutivrichter („Executive Magistrate“) übermittle, welcher dann die Streitparteien schriftlich zu Gericht vorlade (145 (1)), um Stellungnahmen und Beweismittel entgegenzunehmen und, wenn möglich, zu einer Entscheidung, ob eine bzw. welche der Streitparteien das Streitgut besitzt habe, zu kommen (145 (4)).

Kapitel XII des CrPC regelt die Informierung der Polizei und deren Ermittlungsbefugnisse im Allgemeinen, wobei in Indien zwischen „erkennbaren“ („cognizable“) Fällen, bei denen die Polizei die Befugnis zur Festnahme ohne Haftbefehl hat (Artikel 2 (c)), und „nicht-erkennbaren“ („non-cognizable“) Fällen unterschieden wird. Artikel 155 (2) besagt, dass in einem „non-cognizable“ Fall die Polizei nicht ohne die Anordnung eines Magistrats, der dazu bemächtigt ist, den Fall zu verhandeln oder eine solche Verhandlung zu veranlassen, ermitteln dürfe:

„CHAPTER X MAINTENANCE OF PUBLIC ORDER AND TRANQUILLITY […]

D.-Disputes as to immovable property

145. Procedure where dispute concerning land or water is likely to cause breach of peace.

(1) Whenever an Executive Magistrate is satisfied from a report of a police officer or upon other information that a dispute likely to cause a breach of the peace exists concerning any land or water or the boundaries thereof, within his local jurisdiction, he shall make an order in writing, stating the grounds of his being so satisfied, and requiring the parties concerned in such dispute to attend his Court in person or by pleader, on a specified date and time, and to put in written statements of their respective claims as respects the fact of actual possession of the subject of dispute. […]

(4) The Magistrate shall then, without, reference to the merits or the claims of any of the parties to a right to possess the subject of dispute, peruse the statements so put in, hear the parties, receive all such evidence as may be produced by them, take such further evidence, if any, as he thinks necessary, and, if possible, decide whether any and which of the parties was, at the date of the order made by him under sub-section (1), in possession of the subject of dispute.” (CrPC, 1973, Kapitel X)

„CHAPTER XII INFORMATION TO THE POLICE AND THEIR POWERS TO INVESTIGATE […]

154. Information in cognizable cases. (1) Every information relating to the commission of a cognizable offence, if given orally to an officer in charge of a police station, shall be reduced to writing by him or under his direction, and be read Over to the informant; and every such information, whether given in writing or reduced to writing as aforesaid, shall be signed by the person giving it, and the substance thereof shall be entered in a book to be kept by such officer in such form as the State Government may prescribe in this behalf. (2) A copy of the information as recorded under sub-section (1) shall be given forthwith, free of cost, to the informant.

155. Information as to non-cognizable cases and investigation of such cases. (1) When information is given to an officer in charge of a police station of the commission within the limits of such station of a non-cognizable offence, he shall enter or cause to be entered the substance of the information in a book to be kept by such officer in such form as the State Government may prescribe in this behalf, and refer the informant to the Magistrate. (2) No police officer shall investigate a non-cognizable case without the order of a Magistrate having power to try such case or commit the case for trial. (3) Any police officer receiving such order may exercise the same powers in respect of the investigation (except the power to arrest without warrant) as an officer in charge of a police station may exercise in a cognizable case. (4) Where a case relates to two or more offences of which at least one is cognizable, the case shall be deemed to be a cognizable case, notwithstanding that the other offences are non-cognizable.” (CrPC, 1973, Kapitel XII)

„2. Definitions. In this Code, unless the context otherwise requires,- […]

(c) ‘cognizable offence’ means an offence for which, and "cognizable case" means a case in which, a police officer may, in 812 accordance with the First Schedule or under any other law for the time being in force, arrest without warrant” (CrPC, 1973, Art. 2)

Das US-Außenministerium schreibt in seinem im April 2016 publizierten Menschenrechtsbericht (Beobachtungszeitraum 2015), dass die Polizei und Sicherheitskräfte an den gravierendsten Menschrechtsproblemen in Indien beteiligt gewesen seien. Korruption sei weit verbreitet und würde zu einem ineffektiven Umgang mit Verbrechen führen. Auf allen Ebenen der Regierung würde ein Mangel an Verantwortlichkeit bei Fehlverhalten bestehen, was zu einer weitreichenden Straflosigkeit führe. Es habe zwar Untersuchungen und Strafverfolgung in einzelnen Fällen gegeben, aber aufgrund lascher Umsetzung, einem Mangel an ausgebildeten Polizisten und einer Überforderung des Gerichtssystems sei es nur selten zu Verurteilungen gekommen.

Korruption sei auf allen Ebenen der Regierung vorhanden. Zwischen Jänner und November 2016 seien 583 Fälle von Korruption registriert worden. NGOs hätten von Zahlungen von Bestechungsgeldern zur rascheren Ausführung von Leistungen wie Polizeischutz berichtet.

Die Effektivität der Exekutive sei landesweit unterschiedlich. Auf allen Ebenen habe es Fälle von Sicherheitsbeamten, die ungestraft handeln würden, gegeben, aber es gäbe auch Fälle, bei denen Sicherheitsbeamte für ihr illegales Handeln zur Rechenschaft gezogen worden seien.

Das Justizsystem sei nach wie vor stark überlastet und es gebe einen Mangel an modernen Management Systemen was oft zur Verzögerungen oder Vorenthaltung von Gerechtigkeit führe. Mit Stand 1. August 2015 seien 34 Prozent der Stellen in Höchstgerichten unbesetzt:

„The most significant human rights problems involved police and security force abuses, including extrajudicial killings, torture, and rape; corruption remained widespread and contributed to ineffective responses to crimes, including those against women, children, and members of scheduled castes or tribes; and societal violence based on gender, religious affiliation, and caste or tribe. […] A lack of accountability for misconduct at all levels of government persisted, contributing to widespread impunity. Investigations and prosecutions of individual cases took place, but lax enforcement, a shortage of trained police officers, and an overburdened and under resourced court system contributed to infrequent convictions.“ (USDOS, 13. April 2016, Executive Summary)

„Corruption was present at all levels of government. The CBI [Central Bureau of Investigation] registered 583 cases of corruption between January and November. The commission operated a public hotline and a web portal. NGOs reported the payment of bribes to expedite services, such as police protection, school admission, water supply, or government assistance. Civil society organizations drew public attention to corruption throughout the year, including through demonstrations and websites that featured stories of corruption.” (USDOS, 13. April 2016, Section 4)

„The effectiveness of law enforcement and security forces varied widely throughout the country. There were cases of officers at all levels acting with impunity, but there were also cases of security officials held accountable for illegal actions.” (USDOS, 13. April 2016, Section 1d)

„The judicial system remained seriously overburdened and lacked modern case management systems, often delaying or denying justice. An analysis of the data kept by the Ministry of Law and Justice reported a 34-percent vacancy of judges in the high courts as of August 1.” (USDOS, 13. April 2016, Section 1e)

Die indische Tageszeitung The Times of India schreibt in einem Artikel vom April 2016, dass Grundstücks- und Familienstreitigkeiten das Justizsystem blockieren würden. Laut der Nichtregierungsorganistation Daksh, die die Leistungsfähigkeit des indischen Justizsystems analysiert, würde die Polizei die Beschuldigten in den meisten Fällen unnötig in Haft nehmen:

„Property disputes and family conflicts clog our judicial system and in a majority of cases, police detain the accused unnecessarily. These are the findings of Daksh, an NGO which analyses the performance of the judiciary. Around 66% of all cases studied are property-related litigations, and 10%, the second largest chunk, are family matters.” (The Times of India, 26. April 2016)

Die indische Tageszeitung The Hindu berichtet im Juni 2016, dass das höchste Gericht des Bundesstaates Kerala wiederholt verkündet hätte, dass die Polizei nicht in zivilrechtlichen Fällen wie Grundstücksstreitigkeiten eingreifen dürfe. Das Recht, der Anspruch, der Besitz etc. in Bezug auf Grundstücke seien Angelegenheiten, die von Zivilgerichten entschieden werden müssen. Die Polizei könne nicht zum Richter von Streitigkeiten zwischen Parteien werden, die sich entweder mit dem Besitz von Grund, Grundstücksgrenzen, Nutzbarkeitsrechten oder ähnlichen Problematiken beschäftige. Grundstückstreitigkeiten seien außerhalb des Kompetenzbereichs der Polizei, die Streitparteien würden sich an Zivilgerichte richten müssen.

Das Gericht habe einen Antrag auf Polizeischutz im Rahmen eines zivilrechtlichen Rechtsstreits abgelehnt und vermerkt, dass es nicht richtig für ein Gericht sei, bei Streitigkeiten über den Besitz und Anspruch von Grundstücken mittels Anordnung von Polizeischutz einzugreifen:

„A Division Bench of the Kerala High Court on Tuesday reiterated that the police could not interfere in civil cases, including property disputes.

The Bench comprising Justice K.T. Sankaran and Justice A. Hariprasad observed that the right, title, possession and so on in respect of properties were matters to be determined by civil courts.

Dismissing a petition seeking police protection in a civil dispute case, the court observed that in disputes regarding title and possession over property, it was not proper for the court to interfere under Article 226 of the Constitution with an order for police protection.

The police could not be made the adjudicators of such disputes between the parties, either regarding possession of property or regarding boundaries or easements or the like.

Within the domain of civil courts

Property disputes came within the domain of the civil courts and the parties should approach those courts for their redressal. It was outside the limits of the duties of the police” (The Hindu, 22. Juni 2016)

Die indische Tageszeitung The New Indian Express berichtet im Juni 2016 ebenfalls von der Verkündung des höchsten Gerichts in Kerala, wonach die Polizei nicht in Grundstücksstreitigkeiten eingreifen solle:

Making it clear that matters related to title, possession and right to enjoy immovable properties are within the exclusive jurisdiction of Civil Courts, the Kerala High Court has held that the police should not interfere with such issues, especially property disputes. […] ‘The police cannot be made the adjudicators of such disputes, either regarding possession of property, boundaries, easements or the like,’ the court held. For property disputes within the domain of civil courts, the parties should approach those courts. It would be totally against the rule of law if the right of the police is used in favour of one party, without an adjudication by any appropriate authority of the rights of either side.” (The New Indian Express, 22. Juni 2016)

In einem etwas älteren Artikel vom Dezember 2014 schreibt The New Indian Express, dass das höchste Gericht in Hyderabad entschieden habe, dass die Polizei gegen kriminelle Elemente in einer zivilrechtlichen Streitigkeit vorgehen dürfe, nicht aber in die Streitigkeit selbst eingreifen dürfe. Die Polizei dürfe nicht unter dem Vorwand von „Familienberatung“ gerichtliche Entscheidungsfunktionen übernehmen, oder Personen vorladen, um sie zu einer bestimmten Lösung ihrer zivilrechtlichen Streitigkeiten zu zwingen.

Der Artikel beschreibt daraufhin eine familiäre Grundstückstreitigkeit zwischen einem in den USA lebenden Bruder und einer in Indien lebenden Schwester. Der Bruder sei von der indischen Polizei unter Druck gesetzt worden, bereits vorbereitete Dokumente zu unterschreiben, ohne dass ihm dessen Inhalte mitgeteilt worden seien. Zuerst sei er aufgefordert worden, zur Polizeistation zu kommen und sei ins Büro des Polizeichefs des Distriktes („Deputy Commisssioner of Police, DCP) geführt worden. Seine Schwester, die ebenfalls im Büro anwesend gewesen sei, habe daraufhin verlangt, dass er sein Anrecht auf seine Anteile an den Grundstücken aufgebe. Als sich der Bruder geweigert habe, hätte der Polizeibeamte mit einem Strafprozessen gedroht, die ihn davor abhalten würden, das Land zu verlassen.

Der Richter habe klargestellt, dass die Polizei im Rahmen der Strafprozessordnung nur die Befugnis hätte, Beschwerden hinsichtlich Straftaten aufzunehmen und daraufhin zu untersuchen:

„The High Court [of Hyderabad] 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.’ […]

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 [Deputy Commissioner of Police], 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 [Assistant Commandant] Guards. […] Then his sister, who was present in the [police] 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. […]

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 New Indian Express, 22. Dezember 2014)

Im Juni 2016 beschreibt die indische Tageszeitung The Times of India das Verhalten der Polizei in einer Grundstückstreitigkeit, die allerdings nicht auf familiäre Gründe zurückzuführen sei. Demnach hätte ein 29-jähriger Mann in Hyderabad Selbstmord begangen, nachdem er angeblich von der Polizei schikaniert und unter Druck gesetzt worden sei, seinen Anspruch auf ein Grundstück, das seine Familie gekauft habe, aufzugeben. Die Polizeibeamten der Task Force der städtischen Polizeikommission von Hyderabad („Hyderabad City Police Commissionerates“), einer Spezialeinheit der Stadtpolizei, hätten demnach versucht, die Streitigkeiten im Sinne einer der Streitparteien zu klären:

„A 29-year-old man, who committed suicide at SR Nagar on Wednesday, was allegedly harassed and pressurised by Hyderabad police commissioner's Task Force sleuths to give up his claims over a property his family had purchased. Task Force officers not only involved themselves in a civil dispute, but also tried to 'settle' the issue in favour of one of the disputing parties. In fact, Task Force chief Limba Reddy admitted calling the man's father to his office at Patny, but denied calling the victim.

 ‘On May 28, our family, including Pradeep and me, were called to the Task Force office by deputy commissioner of police (Task Force) Limba Reddy and his subordinates Chandrasekar and Baig at the behest of Manoj. They harassed and pressurised us till evening to give up our claim on the property. They even manhandled one of us,’ he said.

Family members alleged that Pradeep, who was under severe pressure, felt dejected as they were likely to suffer huge financial loss due to police interference and later, committed suicide.” (The Times of India, 3. Juni 2016)

 

image001.gif 

 

Quellen: (Zugriff auf alle Quellen am 21. September 2016)

·      CrPC - Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 [25. Jänner 1974]
https://www.oecd.org/site/adboecdanti-corruptioninitiative/46814340.pdf

·      The Hindu: Police cannot interfere in property disputes: HC, 22. Juni 2016
http://www.thehindu.com/news/cities/Kochi/police-cannot-interfere-in-property-disputes-hc/article8758309.ece

·      The New Indian Express: Police Should Not Interfere in Civil Disputes: HC, 22. Dezember 2014
http://www.newindianexpress.com/states/andhra_pradesh/Police-Should-Not-Interfere-in-Civil-Disputes-HC/2014/12/22/article2583243.ece

·      The New Indian Express: Police should not interfere in property disputes: HC, 22. Juni 2016
http://www.newindianexpress.com/cities/kochi/Police-should-not-interfere-in-property-disputes-HC/2016/06/22/article3493837.ece

·      The Times of India: Property and family disputes account for 76% of litigation, 26. April 2016
http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/Property-and-family-disputes-account-for-76-of-litigation/articleshow/51987414.cms

·      The Times of India: 'Harassed by cops, my son ended life', 3. Juni 2016
http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city/hyderabad/Harassed-by-cops-my-son-ended-life/articleshow/52565066.cms

·      USDOS - US Department of State: Country Report on Human Rights Practices 2015 - India, 13. April 2016 (verfügbar auf ecoi.net)
http://www.ecoi.net/local_link/322482/461959_de.html