High Court Punjab-Haryana High Court

Jatinder Singh vs State Of Punjab & Others on 28 November, 2008

Punjab-Haryana High Court
Jatinder Singh vs State Of Punjab & Others on 28 November, 2008
 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA, CHANDIGARH



                     Criminal Miscellaneous No. M-20853 of 2008
                                 Date of Decision: November 28, 2008


Jatinder Singh
                                                    .....PETITIONER(S)

                                  VERSUS


State of Punjab & Others
                                                  .....RESPONDENT(S)
                              .     .      .


CORAM:             HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAI LAMBA


PRESENT: -         Mr. B.S. Bajwa, Advocate, for the petitioner.

Mr. Kamaldeep Singh Sidhu, Deputy Advocate
General, Punjab.

Mr. A.S. Manaise, Advocate, for respondent Nos.3
and 4.

                              .     .      .

AJAI LAMBA, J (Oral)

This petition has been filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C.

praying for directions to respondent Nos.1 and 2 not to harass/ humiliate

the petitioner or his family members unnecessarily and illegally at the

behest of respondent Nos.6 and 7.

The case set up by the petitioner is that he agreed to

sell land to respondent Nos.6 and 7 namely Har Dayal and Amarjit Singh,

and received Rs.10 lac as earnest money. The petitioner all through was

ready and willing to execute the sale deed as per the terms of agreement.

The above named respondent Nos.6 and 7 however did not appear before

the Sub Registrar. The petitioner contacted the said respondents,
Crl. Misc. No. M-20853 of 2008 [2]

however, they sought time to make payment of the remaining amount.

Contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is that

respondent Nos.6 and 7, so as to pressurize the petitioner to return the

earnest money, are misusing the authority vested in respondent Nos.3 to

5. Respondent Nos.3 to 5 are Chajju Ram, Deputy Superintendent of

Police (Headquarters), Amritsar; Gurmeet Singh, Deputy Superintendent

of Police, CIA, Amritsar and Balbir Singh, Deputy Superintendent of

Police, Sadar, Amritsar, respectively. Thus, the police machinery is being

misused to settle a civil dispute. The authority vested by law in

respondent Nos.3 to 5 is being abused for settling personal disputes

which might essentially be of civil nature.

Considering the above given facts, it was directed that

the petitioner would not be summoned to police station till the next date

of hearing in connection with the agreement to sell. The Senior

Superintendent of Police, Amritsar was directed to file reply in the

context of allegations made.

On the adjourned date, it was pointed out that in total

disregard to the authority of this Court and dehors the directions issued

on 18.8.2008, not only FIR No.181 dated 9.9.2008 under Section 420

IPC, Police Station, Beas was registered but the petitioner was also kept

in custody on 15.9.2008. It was only on the intervention of the counsel

that the petitioner was released the next day. Considering this

development, vide Order dated 18.9.2008, Deputy Superintendent of

Police (Headquarters), Amritsar, Deputy Superintendent of Police, CIA,

Amritsar and Deputy Superintendent of Police, Sadar, Amritsar were
Crl. Misc. No. M-20853 of 2008 [3]

directed to be present in Court. On 3.10.2008 i.e. the adjourned date,

Inspector General of Police, Border Range, was required to file the

affidavit in regard to the conduct of respondent Nos.3 to 5 i.e. three

officers to whom reference has been made hereinabove. On 20.10.2008,

learned counsel appearing for the respondent-State informed the Court

that appropriate departmental action is being taken against the erring

officers. It was further brought out that FIR No.181 dated 9.9.2008 under

Section 420 IPC, Police Station, Beas was being cancelled.

On 3.11.2008, the counsel informed the Court that

cancellation report had been presented. Be that as it may, considering the

abuse of process of law and abuse of the authority vested in the

respondents, not only lodging of FIR without there being any occasion to

do so but also keeping the petitioner in custody, the petitioner was

required to be compensated by way of paying Rs.15,000/- by the erring

officers.

Today, it has been brought to the notice of the Court

that compensation to the tune of Rs.15,000/- has been paid. I also find

that the FIR has been cancelled and the erring officers are being

proceeded against in departmental proceedings.

Under the circumstances, no further orders need be

passed.

The petition is disposed of.


                                                        (AJAI LAMBA)
November 28, 2008                                          JUDGE
avin