\s $-38 {< + IN TIIE HIGII COTJRT OF DELIII AT NEW DELHI w.P.(cRL) 823/2009 SUNDERKUMAR ..... Petitioner versus STATE & ORS. Through: IVIr. P.N. Verma, Advocate ..... Respondent Through: Mr. Pawan Sharma, SC for State CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.L. MEIITA ORDER % 12.12.201r 1. This writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of command to respondents no.l to 3 to take appropriate action as per law against respondent no.4 Shri Sukhbfu Singh and to set aside the order of remittance of unexpired portion of sentence of respondent no.4 and to put him in prison to undergo unexpired period of sentence passed by learned ASJ, Delhi and confirmed by this Court. 2. Respondent no.4 Sukhbir Singh was convicted under Sections 302l20ll34IPC in FIR No.13 of 1986 Police Station Kalyan Puri and was sentenced to life imprisonment under Section 302 IPC and RC for four years under Section 201134 IPC. He had undergone imprisonment of 14 years 11 months and 12 days exclusive of remission. He was ordered to be pre-releasec by the Sentence Review Board and was so released on26.02.2008. This order of Sentence Review Board was approved by the Lt. Govemor in exercise of his powers under Section 432 Cr.P.C. While accepting the recommendations of the Sentence Review Board, the Lt. Governor also ordered him to furnish bail bonds and one surety for keeping good behavior for maintaining peace during the unexpired period of sentence which was up to 2012. The necessary bonds were duly executed by Sukhbir Singh. 3. The petitioner who is the son of respondent No. 4 Sukhbir Singh alleging therein that his father Sukhbir Singh was threatening the persons of the localitv includine him in violation of law and order and that the 'i Digitally Signed By:AMULYA Certify that the digital file and physical file have been compared and the digital data is as per the physical file and no page is missing. Signature Not Verified L? \J i complaints in this'regard were also made to the police. He alleged that he had also made a representation to Lt. Governor, but no action taken by him. He specifically alleged that on the night of 17l18ft December 2008, his father Sukhbfu Singh assaulted and caused injuries to one Sunil Kumar, but no action was taken by the police. He alleged that his father was openly selling the properties allotted by DDA. Based on these allegations, he prayed for directing the authorities named above to revoke the issuance of remittance of unexpired period of sentence of respondent no.4 Sukhbir Singh. 4. I have heard Mr. P.N. Verma, learned counsel for the petitioner as well as Mr. Pawan Sharma, Standing Counsel for the State. Respondent no.4 Sukhbir Singh came to be released by Sentence Review Board of Govt. of NCT of Delhi vide its order dated 20.2.2008 in pursuance of its decision dated 8.1.2008. With regard to the allegations that his father Sukhbir Singh caused injuries to Sunil Kumar, it is reported by the police that on 17.12.2008, at information was received regarding quarrel at Chilla Village. The police reached at the spot and thereafter went to LBS Hospital where it was revealed that injwed Sunil was examined there, but he was not found present there. Subsequently, the petitioner came to the police station alleging that his fa.ther had come to his residence and started abusing him, his children and wife, but in the meantime his cousin brother Sunil, Ajay and Rajiv came there and tried to settle him and in the process his wife and children and cousin brothers got injured. The police also reported that the grandfather of the petitioner also made a complaint against the petitioner that he had captured his house and his grandson Rajiv took away Rs.l lac after breaking open the lock of his trunk. He also alleged that the petitioner and his other grandsons gave him beatings when he asked them to vacate the house. He stated that his youngest son Sunil takes care of him. During enquiries of both these cases, both the parties gave statements that the quarrel took place between them due to property dispute and whictr, they have settled with the intervention of the relatives and consequently both the complaints were filed. Even after the compromise both E ( rt t the parties again started filing complaints against each other. It was reported that all these complaints were in respect of distribution of the properties. 5. With regard to the representation as made to the Lt. Governor by the petitioner, it is reported that the Lt. Governor got it verified and it came to be reported by the SDM that Sukhbir Singh was residing in his village whereas the petitioner was not residing at the given address and he used to quarrel with his father. The matter was also verified from the neighbors who did not report any complaint against Sukhbfu Singh. Based on this, the Lt. Governor ordered that no action to be taken on the representation of the petitioner. 6. In view of the fact that there was an ongoing proper(y dispute between the petitioner and his father Sukhbir Singh and that they both were making complaints against each other mainly based on the properly distributing and that on the complaints of each other the police recorded Kalandras 20A & 20B and further that the Lt. Governor had got the same verified from the SDM that there was no other complaint against Sukhbir Singh, I do not see any reason to interfere in the discretion exercised by Lt. Governor in accepting the recommendations of Sentence Review Board. The Sentence Review Board was a competent authority to review the sentence for remission based on the conduct of a convict. I also do not see any reason to interfere with the discretion exercised by the Sentence Review Board in having remitted some part of the sentence of the convict Srit<frUir Singh. The petitioner seems to try to settle the scores against his father with regard to the property disputes. 7. Having regard to the foregoing facts and circumstances, the petition has no merits and is hereby dismissed. T€l^4. r EHTA,J DECEMBER 12,2011 ta/tt" I