Shri Subhash Chand v. Whether approved for reporting?1

Mr. Ajay Sharma, Senior Advocate, with Mr. Atharv Sharma, Advocate. For the respondents : Mr. Pushpinder Jaswal, Additional Advocate General, for respondents No.1 to 3. Mr. Jyotirmay Bhatt, Advocate, for respondents No.9 & 12. Mr. Bhim Raj Sharma, Advocate, for respondents No. 7, 8, 10, 13 & 14. Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge (Oral) By way of this writ petition, the petitioner has, inter alia, prayed for the following reliefs:-

a) Respondents No.1 to 3 may very kindly be directed to get the matter investigated independently 1Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 by a person of high integrity under their direct supervision and monitoring of this Hon'ble Court and place the investigation report before this Hon'ble Court and then to withdraw the earlier report filed under Section 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and file new supplementary report with direction to the Court to proceed in the matter afresh in accordance with law against the persons so named in the fresh report under Section 173 of the Code of Criminal procedure to secure the ends of law and justice. (b) That on the strength of the fresh investigation report, respondents 1 to 3 may very kindly be directed to proceed against the wrong doers SHO Police Station Gagret and Investigation Officers concerned for taking law in their hands and get independent inquiry conducted against them as per provisions of the Police Act and Rules and they be punished suitably in accordance with law and action taken report may very kindly be ordered to be placed on the record of this case which will be an eye opener for others not to work being Police 3 against the interest of the State in connivance with wrong doers.

The case of the petitioner was that the father of the private respondents was having four shops. One of those shops was rented out to the petitioner on a monthly rent of Rs. 130/- per month. Petitioner was running a sweet shop from the said premises. The monthly rent was enhanced from time to time up to Rs. 300/- per month. Out of the said four shops, two shops were in the possession of the owner and one was in the possession of one Nishu. The marriage of the daughter of the petitioner was fixed on 13.11.2017. He was busy in making arrangements for the marriage. On 04.11.2017, the family members of the owner of the shop took law in their own hands. They broke the lock of the premises in possession of the petitioner and took away all the articles etc. When this fact came to the notice of the petitioner, he lodged an FIR No. 159 of 2017 at Police Station Gagret 05.11.2017. The private respondents managed to get the possession of the premises without the course of law. During the course of the investigation of the FIR, the petitioner filed certain complaints, however, as 4 the Investigating Officer was in connivance with the private respondents, he threatened the petitioner with dire consequences. Despite the complaint of the petitioner, no inquiry was effected in the right perspective. No investigation was carried out in the matter in the right spirit and the report submitted under Section 173 of the Criminal Procedure Code, thus was no report in the eyes of law. It is in this backdrop that the petitioner has approached this Court with the reliefs already mentioned hereinabove.

Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner has vehemently argued that in the light of the averments made in the petition, appropriate direction, as prayed for, be issued, so that justice is done to the petitioner.

On the other hand, learned Additional Advocate General has drawn the attention of the Court to the reply filed by respondents No. 1 to 3 and submitted that after the lodging of the FIR, proper investigation was carried out as is also evident from the response filed to the writ petition. He further informed the Court that the investigation report was duly filed before the Court of learned JMIC-II, Amb, which was fixed for 5 consideration. He further apprised the Court that the investigation in the matter was being carried out in accordance with law. No one was under any pressure and as the matter was already before the Court at Amb, this petition deserves dismissal.

Having heard learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner as well as learned Additional Advocate General, this Court is of the considered view that after the lodging of the FIR by the petitioner, as the investigation was carried out and a report was submitted, therefore, recourse, if any, for the petitioner was before the learned Court.

This Court in exercise of its jurisdiction cannot preempt anything either in favour of the petitioner or otherwise. The contentions raised before this Court could have been and can be raised before the Court dealing with the report. Further, this petition was filed in the year 2018 and today we are in the year 2025. During the course of the hearing of this petition, this Court was not informed as to what is the status of the case. Therefore, as this Court is of the considered view that in this case, no interference is called for and as it would be 6 appropriate for the learned Court seized with the matter to take appropriate course therein, in accordance with law, if not already taken, these proceedings are closed. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, also stand disposed of accordingly. Cease May 09, 2025 (Shivank Thakur) (Ajay Mohan Goel) Judge