Research › Search › Judgment

Uttarakhand High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 223 (UTT)

RAFIQ AHMED v. STATE OF UTTARAKHAND

2017-04-07

ALOK SINGH, K.M.JOSEPH

body2017
JUDGMENT K.M. Joseph, C.J. (Oral) Petitioner has approached this Court seeking the following relief: “I- Issue a writ order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing and commanding the respondent No. 1 & 2 to provide adequate safety and security to the petitioner as respondent No. 3 to 8 in an illegal and arbitrary manner continuously threatening the petitioner with dire consequences and are illegally restraining the petitioner from doing his business from tenanted shop situated at Karkhana Bazar Haldwani.” 2. Briefly put, the case of the petitioner is as follows: The father of the petitioner was running a shop bearing Shop No. 11 / 590 situated in Karkhana Bazar, Haldwani, Nainital. Petitioner and his brother late Nafees Ahmed were running the shop under the guidance of his father. Petitioner has four step brothers, who have their own business. After the death of Nafees Ahmed, his son is sitting with the petitioner. Rest of the three brothers were doing another business. Petitioner and his brother are running the shop in the name of Basheer Ahmed & Uttaranchal Traders Karkhana Bazar, Haldwani. On 22.05.2014, the petitioner purchased the shop from the owner of the shop Smt. Qamar Jahan. What is produced is an agreement for sale. Thereafter, it is stated that when the petitioner purchased this shop, some Zaheer Alam Ansari filed a petition against the vendor of the shop Smt. Qamar Jahan and the petitioner. Annexure-2 purports to be the petition. The step brothers of the petitioner, it is alleged, are making pressure on the petitioner to implead (it is wrongly written as ‘implied’ in the petition according to the learned counsel for the petitioner) them in the said shop as a partner and they are creating nuisance and there are threats, it is alleged. Petitioner moved representations before the District Magistrate, Nainital and Senior Superintendent of Police, Nainital requesting them to provide him safety. 3. We heard Sri Zafar Siddiqui, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri D.K. Sharma, learned Additional Advocate General. 4. Learned Additional Advocate General would submit, on instructions, that the parties have been bound over under Section 107 of Cr.P.C., which is also the contention of the petitioner and all precautions have been taken. 5. 3. We heard Sri Zafar Siddiqui, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri D.K. Sharma, learned Additional Advocate General. 4. Learned Additional Advocate General would submit, on instructions, that the parties have been bound over under Section 107 of Cr.P.C., which is also the contention of the petitioner and all precautions have been taken. 5. Sri Zafar Siddiqui, learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that he is not seeking protection for possession, but he is seeking protection for his life, but we have already noticed the prayer. 6. We are of the clear view that the petitioner, if advised, may have to approach the competent Civil Court. Therefore, without prejudice to all the rights, which the petitioner has in law to approach any other competent Forum and also recording the submission of the learned Additional Advocate General that the parties have been bound over under Section 107 of the Cr.P.C., the writ petition is closed.