Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2002 DIGILAW 54 (PNJ)

Singh Ram v. State Of Haryana

2002-01-09

R.C.KATHURIA

body2002
Judgment R.C.Kathuria, J. 1. The petitioner seeks direction to respondent Nos. 2 and 3 to register a case against respondent Nos. 4 and 5 to investigate and further to take possession of the revolver of respondent No. 5 in police custody. In the alternative, it has been prayed that investigation of the case be handed over to some independent agency as this Court may deem fit under the circumstances of the case. 2. Singh Ram had addressed a communication dated 20.8.2001 to the Superintendent of Police, District Kurukshetra. It was stated therein by him that he is a resident of Village Mathana, Tehsil Thanesar, District Kurukshetra. The Sarpanch of the Gram Panchayat of that village along with his party men had encroached upon the land of the Gram Panchayat. It has resulted in loss to it. He had made a request to the Sarpanch and Panches of the Gram Panchayat to get the land under encroachment vacated but as the persons, who are in occupation of the encroached land, are the men of the Sarpanch, no action was taken against them. Thereafter, the report was made by him to the Deputy Commissioner in this regard who sent the same to D.D.P.O. and B.D.P.O. for necessary action. This annoyed the Sarpanch-Ishwar and his brother - Mohinder threatened the complainant to withdraw the application otherwise they would kill him. Mohinder brother of Sarpanch - Ishwar has been in possession of licensed revolver. On 12.8.2001. Mohinder and his brother - Ishwar forcibly entered the house of the petitioner and threatened him to withdraw the application otherwise he would be done to death. Thereafter, Mohinder had abused and shown the revolver to him and stated that if he did not stop doing so, he would be stopped for ever by him. Because of the continuous threats from Ishwar and Mohinder to the complainant and his family members a prayer had been made to register the case against them. When no action was taken on his complaint the petitioner invoked the jurisdiction of this Court. 3. Notice of this petition was given to the respondents. While resisting the petition, respondent Nos. 1 to 3 have taken the stand that the petitioner is a quarrel some person and is habitual of filing false applications. While refuting allegations made against respondent Nos. 3. Notice of this petition was given to the respondents. While resisting the petition, respondent Nos. 1 to 3 have taken the stand that the petitioner is a quarrel some person and is habitual of filing false applications. While refuting allegations made against respondent Nos. 4 and 5, it was stated that both of them are peace loving and law abiding persons of the society. It was further stated that Ejectment proceedings against the unauthorised occupation of the gram Panchayat land had been initiated and Police help was sought in order to demarcate the land with the help of Halqa Patwari. Report in this regard has already been sent which was forwarded to the Kanoongo to the S.D.M. It has also been pointed out that the petitioner had concealed the material facts from the Court because earlier he moved an application is this Court for direction to file a case in proper Court at Kurukshetra for Ejectment of persons who were in unauthorised occupation of the panchayat land and the same was dismissed as withdrawn on 29.8.2001. 4. Respondent Nos. 4 and 5, in their separate written statement, termed the allegations made against them as false and baseless and motivated by political consideration because the petitioner had contested the election of the Gram Panchayat against respondent No.4 and lost the same. The incident dated 12.8.2001 alleged by the petitioner has been denied by them. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties at length. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended before me that the Superintendent of Police, District Kurukshetra was duty bound to register the case against the accused when incident dated 12.8.2001 was brought to his notice through communication dated 20.8.2001. Copy of which is Annexure - P.2. Reliance was placed on the observations made in Kuldip Singh v. State, 1994 (2) RCR 498 and Mohindro v. State of Punjab and others, AIR 2001 SC 2113. It is manifest from the observations made in the above mentioned cases that where information received by the Police discloses commission of cognizable offence, the Police has no option but to register a case and proceed with the investigation. The principle being well settled there can hardly be any dispute in this regard. 7. It is manifest from the observations made in the above mentioned cases that where information received by the Police discloses commission of cognizable offence, the Police has no option but to register a case and proceed with the investigation. The principle being well settled there can hardly be any dispute in this regard. 7. However, coming to the facts of the present case, it is manifest from the record that the petitioner had addressed an application dated 2.7.2001 to the Deputy Commissioner, Kurukshetra seeking Ejectment of the persons in unauthorised occupation of the Panchayat land details of which had been mentioned in para 2 of the application. So far this part of the allegation is concerned, the respondents in their reply have stated that the petitioner had earlier filed a petition in this regard but the same was dismissed as withdrawn on 29.8.2001. At the same time, respondent Nos. 1 to 3 have also stated that respondent No. 4 had already initiated the proceedings seeking Ejectment of the persons in unauthorised occupation of the Panchayat land and report in this regard had been sent to the Halqa Patwari which was forwarded to the Kanoongo and the S.D.M. 8. With the above background, the incident dated 12.8.2001 needs to be examined. The accusations made by the petitioner against Ishwar and his brother Mohinder are that they had entered his house and threatened him that he would be done to death if he did not withdraw the application and further abused the members of his family. What were the abuses hurled by both the accused have not been spelled out. The allegation of pointing out of revolver towards the petitioner had been made and the threat so given is sought to be co-related on this account. After taking into account the above facts, the only conclusion which can be drawn is that a story has been made out in order to level allegations against Ishwar and his brother - Mohiner. The prayer made for registration of a case in the facts and circumstances of this case, in my view, rather tantamount to misuse of the process of the Court. Circumstances enumerated above do not warrant that this Court in exercise of the power under Section 482 of the Code should direct registration of the case against respondent Nos. 4 and 5. 9. Circumstances enumerated above do not warrant that this Court in exercise of the power under Section 482 of the Code should direct registration of the case against respondent Nos. 4 and 5. 9. For the aforesaid reasons, there is no merit in the petition ff and the same is dismissed.