IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Crl. Misc. No. M-13000 of 2010 Date of decision : 5.5.2010 Jagir Singh …. Petitioner Versus SSP (Rural), Amritsar and Others ….. Respondents Present : Mr. Balbir Singh Jaswal, Advocate for the petitioner. *** S.S. SARON, J. This petition has been filed for directing Senior Superintendent of Police (Rural), Amritsar to look into the grievance of the petitioner who has submitted a representation dated 25.3.2010 (Annexure P3). It is submitted that respondents No.3 to 9 in connivance with the police are not allowing the petitioner to harvest the wheat crop standing in the land as detailed in the head note of the petition. Sohan Singh, father of the petitioner was owner of land measuring 46 kanals, 5 marals. Since, respondents No.3 to 9 were interfering in the peaceful possession of the petitioner, the petitioner filed civil suit No.554 dated 2.7.1994 in the civil court at Baba Bakala. The suit of the petitioner for permanent injunction was decreed in his favour by the learned Civil Judge (Jr. Division), Baba Bakal vide judgment dated 19.11.1996 (Annexure P1). It is alleged Crl. Misc. No. M-13000 of 2010 [2] that though the petitioner remained in the possession of the land in dispute, Deep Singh (respondent No.3) filed an application for correction of khasra girdawari in respect of the land comprised in Khasra No.42/5 (3-16) and 43/1/1 min (4-12). The said application was dismissed as withdrawn. Thereafter, some injuries were also caused to the petitioner on 28.11.2001. In this respect, the petitioner has filed a criminal complaint on 19.2.2002. A compromise was effected between the parties in the criminal complaint. The petitioner had agreed to get the complaint quashed from the competent court and also paid a sum of Rs.5 lacs to Deep Singh (respondent No.3). Deep Singh (respondent No.3) had agreed to return Rs.5 lacs to the petitioner and the petitioner also agreed to hand over the possession of land in favour of Deep Singh (respondent No.3) when the amount of Rs.5 lacs was returned. It is alleged that after the complaint was quashed, Deep Singh (respondent No.3) in connivance with other respondents without paying anything to the petitioner as per compromise started interfering in the peaceful possession of the petitioner in respect of the land in question. The petitioner aggrieved against the action of the respondent has also moved the police authorities, however, no action has been taken. After giving my thoughtful consideration to the matter, it may be noticed that the primary grievance of the petitioner is that despite the civil suit filed by him having been decreed on 19.11.1996 (Annexure P1), the respondents No.3 to 9 are interfering with his possession and this is being done in connivance with the police. In my view, the proper course for such interference in the land is that in case there has been a breach of an order of injunction, the remedy is Crl. Misc. No. M-13000 of 2010 [3] to move the civil Court in terms of Order 21 Rule 32 CPC. The procedure of Section 482 CrPC cannot be invoked to enforce an injunction order passed in favour of a party. The Crl. Misc. petition is accordingly dismissed. (S.S. SARON) JUDGE May 5, 2010 amit