IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Crl. Misc. No. M-29137 of 2009 Date of decision : 9.3.2010 Ashok Kumar …. Petitioner Versus State of Punjab and others …. Respondents Present: Mr. Ashok Kumar Sharma, Advocate for Mr. Suresh Goel, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Shilesh Gupta, DAG, Punjab. **** S.S. SARON, J. This petition has been filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure seeking protection of the life, liberty and property of the petitioner and his wife from respondents No.3 and 4 who, it is alleged, in connivance with each other are pressurizing the petitioner to compromise the matter with respondent No.4. The petitioner and respondent No.4 are real brothers and they along with Smt. Kanta Devi widow of Bindravan, Smt. Veena Garg wife of Gopal Chand and Sh. Chander Mohan son of Fateh Chand were partners and running a firm under the name and style of M/s Punjab Poultry and Feeds, Barnala. Master Ramandeep Garg, minor son of Late Surjeet Chand was also admitted to the profit of the said firm. The partnership firm filed civil suit No.12102 of 14.12.1993 in the Court of learned Sub-Judge, Barnala against Rakesh Kumar and Mahesh Kumar sons of Sham Lal seeking declaration to the effect that they were owners in possession of land Crl. Misc. No. M-29137 of 2009 [2] measuring 20 kanals 13 marlas which was ‘gair mumkin’ land of the poultry farm situated in the revenue limits of the village Handiaya. The suit of the partnership firm was decreed on 17.2.1994 and the partnership firm was declared owner-in-possession of the said land measuring 20 kanals 13 marlas. On 31.3.1994, Kanta Devi wife of Bindravan, Veenu Garg, Chander Mohan and Master Ramandeep Garg retired from the partnership firm and regular deed of retirement was executed on 31.3.1994. Thereafter, respondent No.4 and the petitioner, however, continued to be partners of the firm M/s Punjab Poultry and Feeds, Barnala and a regular partnership deed was executed between them on 1.4.1994. Both the partners had 50% share each in the profit and loss. Dispute arose in respect of the partnership firm and therefore, it is alleged that respondents are colluding and pressurizing the petitioner to compromise the matter. Notice of motion was issued by this Court on 15.10.2009 to respondents No.1 to 3 only. Reply on behalf of respondents No.1 to 3 has been filed in which it is stated that the petitioner has not come to the Court with clean hands and has made false allegations with a view to put pressure on the police to favour him. It is submitted that the petitioner is litigating number of cases with his brother and other partners. Jagdish Ram (respondent No.4) who is the brother of the petitioner moved an application to the Senior Superintendent of Police, Barnala against the petitioner regarding violation of the orders of the Court and also stealing and damaging the goods. The said application was marked to Sh. Rupinder Kumar Bhardwaj, PPS, DSP (City), Barnala (respondent No.3) who enquired into the matter by calling the petitioner. The petitioner joined the Crl. Misc. No. M-29137 of 2009 [3] investigation on 8.10.2009 and he made his statement. He admitted in his statement that he had dismantled a shed and he was responsible for the same. Besides, he was owner of the dismantled site. He further deposed that in future he would not place any article in the site in question nor he would lift any article from there. After enquiry, the enquiry officer found the petitioner guilty for violating the orders of the Court and also for dismantling the poultry farm and stealing the articles. Accordingly, DSP (City), Barnala (respondent No.3) recommended for registration of a case against the petitioner. The matter was referred to the Deputy DA Legal, Barnala for legal opinion who in his report dated 27.10.2009 opined that the matter was still pending in the Court and any aggrieved party had the remedy to approach the Court which had passed the order. It was opined that no offence regarding the commission of theft was made out. Accordingly, no case has been registered against the petitioner and he is not wanted in any criminal case. Keeping in view the fact that no case has been registered against the petitioner and he is not wanted in any criminal case, it cannot be said that respondents No.1 to 3 are putting any pressure on the petitioner. Accordingly, there is no merit in the present petition and the same is dismissed. (S.S. SARON) JUDGE March 9, 2010 amit