CRM No. M 1594 of 2010 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH -- CRM No. M 1594 of 2010 Date of decision: 14.03.2011 Malook Singh ........ Petitioner Versus State of Punjab and others .......Respondent(s) Coram: Hon'ble Ms Justice Nirmaljit Kaur -.- Present: Mr. Garsharan Singh, Advocate for Mr. Ranjan Lakhanpal, Advocate for the petitioner Mr. K S Pannu, DAG, Punjab for the respondent State Mr. Devinder Kumar Kaushal, Advocate for respondent No. 7 Mr. Vikas Mehsempuri, Advocate for respondent No. 8 -.- 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. To be referred to the Reporter or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? Nirmaljit Kaur, J. (Oral) This is a petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C for issuance of direction to the respondents police not to compel the petitioner to leave his land situated in Khewat Khatoni No. 22/65 to 71, Khasra No. 6//21 (3-11), 9//9/2(1-19), 10 (7-16), 11/1 (0-10), 20/1 (0-9), 21/1 (0-2), 22//6/2/2 (0-8), 7//25 (0-1), 8//5 (3-15), 6 (1-1), 9//1(8-0), 2/1 (2-0), 9//22/1 (4-0), 22//5/2 (3-12), 22//6/1 (3-0), 7 (8-0), 13 (1-16), 14/1 (3-4), 22//2(4-0), 3(7-8), 4 (6- CRM No. M 1594 of 2010 2 4), 8(5-11), 22//6/2/1 (3-8) items 23, total measuring 79 kanals 15 marlas out of 266/1595 share i.e. 13 kanals 6 marlas situated at village Bishanpura alias Banwala, tehsil Patran, District Patiala according to jamabandi for the year 2004-2005 at the instance of Nichhatar Singh who is using his influence with Prem Singh Chandu Majra. Reply by way of affidavit of Devinder Singh, DSP, Patran on behalf of respondents No. 1 to 4 has been filed. The same is taken on record. As per the said reply, two criminal cases i.e. FIR No. 104 dated 15.10.2009, P S Ghagga and FIR No. 3 dated 07.01.2010 under Section 379, 506 IPC, P S Ghagga, have been registered against the petitioner and his party man. It is further stated that there is a civil suit between the petitioner and respondents No. 7 and 8 and the police has no role to play. The Superintendent of Police, Detective, Patiala also expressed in his enquiry report that both the parties should adopt the legal procedure for taking possession of the land. It is also stated that the police never compelled the petitioner to leave his land and that the stand of the police is clear that the possession should be taken over as per the decision of the Court in the civil dispute. Respondent No. 7 has also filed his reply. The same is taken on record. In view of the reply filed by the State, no further order is called for and the present petition is disposed of as such. (Nirmaljit Kaur) Judge 14.03.2011 mohan