Criminal Misc. No.M-3705 of 2010 v. Senior Superintendent of Police, Hoshiarpur & Ors.

Mr. R.S. Bajaj, Advocate has put in appearance on behalf of respondents No.3 to 5. The case of the petitioner is that he earns his livelihood by doing the work of welding and manufacturing of iron gates and grills from his small shop. Kewal Kumar (respondent No.5) (actual name is Komal Cr. Misc. No.M-3705 of 2010 [2] Kumar Jain) is a Municipal Councillor belonging to the ruling party. It is stated that he is an influential person and ever since the change of Government in Punjab, he has been trying to uproot the petitioner from his shop. It is alleged that respondents No.3 to 5 have tried every method of arm-twisting to force the petitioner to leave the shop. The petitioner is occupying the premises and earning his livelihood for the last two generations in the same shop. During the intervening night of 12/13.10.2009 it is alleged that respondents No.3 to 5 demolished his shop and removed his belongings. The petitioner approached respondent No.2- SHO, Police Station Mukerian for registration of FIR. He also sent copies of complaint to respondent No.1-SSP, Hoshiarpur, DGP, Punjab as well as Chief Minister, Punjab for taking action against respondents No.3 to 5 for demolishing his `Khokha' and removing his articles. Respondent No.5- Kewal Kumar (actual name is Komal Kumar Jain), it is stated, is a Municipal Councillor of the ruling party and is very close to MLA Shri Arunesh Shakker, Mukerian and he used his influence. SHO, Mukerian (respondent No.2) did not register FIR against private respondents under the influence of the local MLA. The petitioner was, therefore, compelled to file a complaint (Annexure-P.1) alleging commission of offences under Sections 457, 427, 380 and 120-B IPC against respondents No.3 to 5 in the Court of learned Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Dasuya. The learned Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Dasuya summoned respondents No.3 to 5 on the complaint filed by the petitioner. The same was pending for 15.2.2010. Therefore, it is alleged that since respondents No.3 to 5 had come to know of the summoning in the complaint filed by the petitioner, they are Cr. Misc. No.M-3705 of 2010 [3] threatening and pressurizing the petitioner to either withdraw the complaint or face dire consequences. The petitioner approached SHO Police Station Mukerian (respondent No.2) to record a DDR in this regard that in case any harm was caused to him or his family members, respondents No.3 to 5 would be responsible. Instead of performing his duties, it is alleged, that respondent No.2 had rebuked him and informed him that the respondents were influential persons and he should not dare them in litigation and advised the petitioner to withdraw his claim or respondents No.3 to 5 would get him implicated in a false case. It is alleged that the petitioner does not have faith in the local Police. Respondents No.3 to 5 are openly proclaiming that the petitioner would face the music for filing a complaint against them in the Court and the petitioner apprehends immediate danger to his life and liberty. In terms of the reply that has been filed, it is submitted that the petitioner submitted an application dated 3.12.2009 to the SSP, Hoshiarpur (respondent No.1) and an inquiry was marked to DSP, Sub Division Dasuya. The petitioner had also submitted an application dated 17.12.2009 to the DGP, Punjab and the same was entrusted to DSP, Sub Division, Mukerian but the petitioner had also submitted an application dated 21.10.2009 to SHO, Police Station Mukerian and he got an inquiry conducted from SI Gurmeet Singh of Police Station Mukerian. It is submitted that the Police Officer conducted a proper and fair inquiry in detail and found that long time back, Amar Nath son of Mool Raj-grand-father of the petitioner and Kewal Krishan son of Amar Nath-father of the petitioner were doing work as `Mujahra' and they were having a small shop/Khokha in the vacant land Cr. Misc. No.M-3705 of 2010 [4] lying in front of Narindra Hospital Mukerian, District Hoshiarpur. Amar Nath, grand-father of the petitioner died in the year 1985. After the death of Amar Nath, grand-father of the petitioner, Sham Lal, Om Parkash, Madan Lal uncles of the petitioner and Kewal Krishan-father of the petitioner were doing work as `Mujahra' in the small `Khokha'/shop in the land. With regard to the said land, written agreement and affidavit were executed by Sham Lal-uncle of the petitioner and Kewal Krishan-father of the petitioner for himself and being power of attorney of Om Parkash and Madan Lal, uncles of the petitioner in favour of Kimti Jain and Padam Jain residents of Lambi Gali, Mukerian for leaving the possession and removing the small shop/Khokha from the said land. Komal Jain put his signatures as witness on the agreement being a Municipal Councillor. The true copies of affidavit dated 22.10.1998 and agreement dated 30.5.2000 executed by Sham Lal- uncle of the petitioner and Kewal Krishan-father of the petitioner for himself and as power of attorney of Om Parkash and Madan Lal-uncles of the petitioner are attached as Annexures-R.1 and R.2. According to the said agreements, the uncles and father of the petitioner took their due share of land in lieu of their possession as `Mujahra' in the said land and they removed the `Khokha'/small shop from the said land. The petitioner has no small shop/Khokha in the said land and he has no concern with the said land. It is submitted that the petitioner is an idle person and addict and he is moving applications with a view to fetch money from the Jain family and to harass them and he is putting the Jain family into fear by threatening that he would die after taking poison. It is submitted that the Jain family is a respectable family and is having good reputation in the area and are not Cr. Misc. No.M-3705 of 2010 [5] harassing the petitioner in any manner. The applications submitted by the petitioner were found to be false. True copies of the inquiry report dated

27.1.2010 (Annexure-R.3) conducted by DSP, Sub Division Dasuya, true copy of the inquiry report dated 4.1.2010(Annexure-R.4) conducted by DSP, Sub Division Mukerian and copy of inquiry report dated 11.11.2009 (Annexure-R.5) are attached with the reply. Besides, it is submitted that there is no threat to the life and liberty of the petitioner at the hands of respondents No.3 to 5, however, the Police is ready to give Police protection to the petitioner at the expenses of the petitioner. After giving my thoughtful consideration to the matter, it may be noticed that the petitioner has filed a criminal complaint dated 9.11.2009 (Annexure-P.1) with respect to the incident of 13.10.2009 which it is stated had occurred at 12.00 a.m. In the said complaint the names of the accused have been mentioned as Kimti Lal, Padam Jain and Kewal Kumar. However, in para 6 of the said complaint it has been alleged by the petitioner that on 13.10.2009 at about 12.00 a.m. Harish Kumar son of Bal Krishan was returning from the welding shop to the house of the applicant. The said Harish Kumar was working with the applicant (petitioner). As he passed through Narindra Hospital, he saw Kimti Lal (accused No.1) and Padam Kumar (accused No.2) along with 6-7 other persons holding rods and breaking the iron vessel. Harish Kumar then rushed to the house of the petitioner and disclosed to him the entire matter. The petitioner and Harish Kumar ran towards the vessel and they saw that the vessel had been destroyed and all the goods that were inside the vessel such as cycle, rickshaw body, cycle repair instruments, one bedding and utensils and one Cr. Misc. No.M-3705 of 2010 [6] Rehri frame were taken away after breaking iron lock tied to the vessel. The applicant then moved a complaint to Police Station Mukerian but the Police did not take any action. It may be noticed that Kewal Kumar (respondent No.5 (actual name is Komal Kumar Jain) is named as one of the accused against whom action is to be sought but there is no allegation in the complaint that he along with Kimti Lal and Padam Kumar (respondents No.3 and 4) had also demolished or dismantled the vessel. In any case, the summoning order dated 9.12.2009 has been issued by the Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Dasuya and the case is to be considered on the basis of evidence and material that will be available before the said Court. In the present petition, no further action is called for as the matter has been inquired into by the Police and three inquires dated 27.1.2010 (Annexure- R.3) i.e. by DSP Dasuya, inquiry report dated 4.1.2010 (Annexure-R.4) by DSP, Sub Division Mukerian and inquiry report dated 11.11.2009 (Annexure-R.5) by SHO, Police Station Mukerian have been conducted. In the said inquiries an affidavit dated 22.10.1998 (Annexure-R.1) and the agreement dated 30.5.2000 (Annexure-R.2) were considered. In terms of the affidavit dated 22.10.2008 (Annexure-R.1) Kewal Krishan-father of the petitioner being general power of attorney of Om Parkash and Madan Lal; besides, Sham Lal-uncle of the petitioner being brother of his father agreed that the land measuring 4 Kanals as detailed in the agreement was the ownership of Piare Lal, Chanan Ram, Om Parkash, Moti Ram sons of Bal Mukand, Keemat Rai, Lekh Raj sons and Kanta Rani, Santosh Rani daughters of Lahori Ram son of Bal Mukand. The deponents had handed over the possession of the land to the owners in sound mind along with all Cr. Misc. No.M-3705 of 2010 [7] rights of `Gair Marusi'. They had no objection in case the owners got the Girdawri corrected in respect of the said land in their favour. In terms of the agreement dated 30.5.2000 (Annexure-R.2) Sham Lal-uncle of the petitioner and Kewal Krishan-father of the petitioner for himself and general power of attorney of Om Parkash, Chanan Ram, Moti Ram sons of Bal Mukand, Keemat Rai son of Lahori Ram, Dwarika Devi widow of Piare Lal received an amount for 8 Marlas of land and the agreements have been scribed. In view of the above, no interference of this Court is warranted and in exercise of the inherent jurisdiction of this Court no directions are liable to be issued and the petitioner may pursue his other remedies, if so advised, in accordance with law. The criminal miscellaneous petition is accordingly dismissed. March 12, 2010. *hsp* (S.S. Saron) Judge