IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
Criminal Misc 17739 of 2009 and
Criminal Misc M-9292 of 2009
Date of decision: 15.4.2009
Nagina Singh ...Petitioner
Versus
State of Punjab etc. ...Respondents
Present: Mr RS Malhotra, Advocate for the petitioner.
S.S.SARON, J.
Criminal Misc 17739 of 2009
Submits that copy of Annexure P2 attached with the petition is
of some other case, therefore, it is submitted that Annexure P2 attached with
the criminal misc application be taken on record and substituted for that
originally filed with the main criminal misc petition.
The Criminal Misc application is allowed and the application
dated 23.3.2009 (Annexure P2) attached with the criminal misc application
is taken on record and substituted for that originally filed with the main
petition.
This application stands disposed of.
Criminal Misc M-9292 of 2009
This petition under Section 482 CrPC has been filed for
directing respondents-1 to 3 to protect the life and liberty of the petitioner
and to provide the petitioner adequate security.
Criminal Misc 17739 of 2009 and
Criminal Misc M-9292 of 2009
2
According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, the
petitioner is in possession of land measuring 4 Kanals comprised in Khasra
No.4/1/1 which, it is alleged, he has purchased from Smt Bawi. Mutation
to this effect, it is submitted, has also been entered in the name of the
petitioner. It is further submitted that the petitioner is also in possession of
land measuring 8 Kanals comprised in Khasra No.4/1/2 as a tenant for the
last 24-25 years. The petitioner is to harvest his wheat crop in the second
week of April 2009. The petitioner, it is alleged, filed a suit against
Darshan Singh and Pritam Singh sons of Sant Singh (respondents-4 and 5)
for restraining them from interfering in the peaceful possession of the
petitioner in the aforesaid land measuring 12 Kanals. The suit was partly
decreed on 27.11.2003. Respondents-4 and 5 filed an appeal which was
dismissed by the learned Additional District Judge, Gurdaspur on
29.7.2004. Despite that, it is submitted that respondents-4 and 5 as also
respondent-6 are interfering in the land of the petitioner.
After giving my thoughtful consideration to the mater, it may
be noticed that the dispute between the parties is of a civil nature and
according to the petitioner, he has a civil Court decree of permanent
injunction in his favour. However, the copy of the judgment and decree has
not been placed on record. Besides, in case the petitioner has a decree for
permanent injunction in his favour and there is a breach of injunction order,
the proper course for him is to avail his remedy under Order 21 Rule 32
CPC. This Court, in exercise of its inherent jurisdiction under Section 482
CrPC, is not to enforce the injunction order that has been passed in favour
of the petitioner.
Criminal Misc 17739 of 2009 and
Criminal Misc M-9292 of 2009
3
In view of the above, there is no merit in this petition and the
same is accordingly dismissed.
15.4.2009. ( S.S.SARON ) ASR Judge