Crl. Misc. No. M-25507 of 2011 (O & M) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Crl. Misc. No. M-25507 of 2011 (O & M) DATE OF DECISION: August 24, 2011 Gopal Sharma .........PETITIONER(S) VERSUS State of Punjab and others ........ RESPONDENT(S) CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAI LAMBA Present: Mr. A.S. Cheema, Advocate, for the petitioner(s). AJAI LAMBA, J. (ORAL) This petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. seeks quashing of DDR No. 26 dated 03.02.2011, P.S. Sardulgarh. It has been pleaded that the case FIR No. 30 dated 25.06.2010 under Section 135 of the Electricity Act, 2003 was registered at police station APT, Bathinda, wherein Ranjit Singh s/o Rattan Singh was arrayed as accused. Ranjit Singh carried a grudge because he was having suspicion that the petitioner made the complaint to electricity department. On account of the said enmity, Ranjit Singh, allegedly, alongwith co-accused on 31.01.2011 forcibly entered into the house of the petitioner, abducted him, took him to the fields and caused injuries to the petitioner. The petitioner thereafter was thrown near the police station Sardulgarh, from where he was admitted in the hospital. Medico Legal Report has been appended as Annexure P-1 and is dated 31.01.2011. Police personnel of police station Sardulgarh visited civil hospital, Sardulgarh to record statement of the petitioner and vide application dated 31.01.2011 Annexure P-2, sought the Crl. Misc. No. M-25507 of 2011 (O & M) 2 opinion of the doctor regarding fitness of the petitioner to give statement. Petitioner was declared unfit to give statement. The petitioner visited police station Sardulgarh time and again thereafter to seek action against the accused persons. On 27.04.2011, the petitioner was told by the SHO that the petitioner had settled the disputes by way of compromise and in view of compromise, no action shall be taken. The petitioner projected before the SHO that the petitioner had not signed the compromise and the document was fabricated. DDR impugned by way of this petition is the document on the basis of which it is projected that the disputes have been settled by the petitioner in view of compromise. After recording of the impugned DDR, no action is being taken. It has been pleaded that representation was given to SSP, Mansa on 28.06.2011, however, no action till now has been taken. I have considered the contention of the learned counsel. It appears that some incident took place, in which the petitioner received injury, as is evident from Annexure P-1. It is the projected case on behalf of the petitioner that no FIR has been lodged, despite the Medico Legal Report. Allegedly, no action is being taken in view of compromise stated to have been signed by the petitioner (Annexure P-3). The petitioner, however, is seriously disputing the fact and hence has had to approach this Court to seek relief. The issue can very well be addressed by SSP, Mansa, under whose jurisdiction police station Sardulgarh falls. In such circumstances, this petition is disposed of with directions to SSP, Mansa to treat a copy of this petition as a representation and pass appropriate directions as are required by law. In case it is found that the Crl. Misc. No. M-25507 of 2011 (O & M) 3 petitioner had not entered into compromise and wants to prosecute the accused, appropriate directions would be issued within a period of two weeks of receipt of certified copy of the order. 24.08.2011 (AJAI LAMBA) shivani JUDGE