W.P.(CRL) 934/2010 Page 1 of 3 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + W.P.(CRL) 934/2010 Decided on 08.07.2010 IN THE MATTER OF : BHAGAT SINGH ..... Petitioner Through : Mr. M.K. Pradhan, Adv. versus THE COMMISSIONER OF POLICE & ORS. ..... Respondents Through : Mr. Akshay Bipin, ASC for R-1 & 2 with ASI Arvind Kumar, PS Bharat Nagar. Mr. R.S. Dakha with Mr. C. Rajaram, Advs. for R-3 to 7 CORAM * HON'BLE MS.JUSTICE HIMA KOHLI 1. Whether Reporters of Local papers may No be allowed to see the Judgment? 2. To be referred to the Reporter or not? No 3. Whether the judgment should be No reported in the Digest? HIMA KOHLI, J. (Oral) 1. The respondents No.3 to 7 are served and are duly represented through counsel. 2. The present petition is filed by the petitioner praying inter alia for protection from the purported illegal harassment and torture on the part of the respondents No.3 to 7 and to restrain the said respondents from entering the Gurudwara constructed in front of House No.E-245, Wazir Pur, J.J. Colony, Delhi. It is the case of the petitioner that in the year 1965, his parents constructed a Gurudwara in front of their house at the aforesaid address and started sewa and became caretakers thereof. After their demise, the petitioner, who is handicapped, became the caretaker of the W.P.(CRL) 934/2010 Page 2 of 3 Gurudwara and survives on the donations made by the devotees, who visit the Gurudwara. It is averred in the petition that the respondents No.3 & 4 have threatened to kill the petitioner in case he does not leave the Gurudwara. The cause of action for filing the present petition is stated to have arisen on 17.5.2010, when the respondents No.3 to 7 purportedly entered the Gurudwara by breaking open its lock, gave beatings to the petitioner and his wife and took away various articles lying in the Gurudwara, as mentioned in para 3(G) of the petition. It is stated that on the very next date, i.e., on 18.5.2010, the petitioner made over a complaint to the respondent No.2 against the respondents No.3 to 7, but as no action was taken by the respondents No.1 & 2, he was compelled to file the present petition. 3. Vide order dated 9.6.2010, a Status Report was called for, from the respondents No.1 & 2. The same has been handed over in the Court, with an advance copy to the other side, and taken on the record. It is stated in the Status Report that the Gurudwara in question is built on Government land and is being maintained by a Society called Gurudwara Shri Guru Singh Sabha, JJ Colony Wazir Pur Delhi. Delhi. It is further stated that the petitioner is not residing at the address given in the petition, i.e., House No.E-245, Wazir Pur, J.J. Colony, Delhi, though the said property belongs to his parents and that in fact he is residing somewhere else. 4. Insofar as the incident dated 17.5.2010 is concerned, it is submitted that on receiving a complaint from the petitioner with regard to the aforesaid incident on 18.5.2010, PS Bharat Nagar undertook inquiries and it has transpired from the inquiries that some altercation had taken place between the petitioner and the respondents No.3 to 7 as the petitioner W.P.(CRL) 934/2010 Page 3 of 3 wanted some money from them out of the offerings/donations received in the Gurudwara, but the contentions of the petitioner that the respondents No.3 to 7 looted his articles and some cash, were found to be false and baseless. 5. Insofar as the claim of the petitioner for protection against the respondents No.3 to 7 is concerned, it is stated that since the petitioner is not residing at the address given by him in the writ petition, there was no occasion to grant him protection and in case the petitioner wishes to reside at the given address, protection shall be granted to him. 6. In view of the aforesaid Status Report, it is deemed appropriate to dispose of the present petition as the main grievance of the petitioner that the respondent No.2 is not acting on the complaint made by him, stands satisfied. The inquiries made by the respondent No.2 make it clear that the petitioner is neither residing at the address given by him in the present petition, nor is the Gurudwara in question, his private property, but built on Government land. Hence, the second relief prayed for by the petitioner that the respondents No.3 to 7 be restrained from entering the Gurudwara, is in any case not maintainable. 7. Insofar as the first relief is concerned, in case the petitioner furnishes his correct residential address to the respondent No.2, they shall take necessary steps to protect him in the event such an occasion arises, in accordance with law. 8. The petition is disposed of. File be consigned to the record room. (HIMA KOHLI) JULY 08, 2010 JUDGE sk