IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Criminal Misc. No. M-17857 of 2009 Date of decision : September 14, 2009 Gulshan Khurana ....Petitioner versus State of Haryana and others ....Respondents Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice L.N. Mittal Present : Mr. Rajpal Singh, Advocate, for the petitioner Mr. Sidharth Sarup, AAG Haryana for respondent no. 1 to 6 L.N. Mittal, J. (Oral) Gulshan Khurana has filed this petition under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for directing respondent Nos. 2 to 6 (police authorities) to arrest respondent no. 7 against whom petitioner has lodged FIR No. 127 dated 20.3.2009, under sections 323, 341, 506, 120-B IPC, Police Station N.I.T. Faridabad (Annexure P/1) and to add other offences as per medical evidence against respondent no. 7 and his accomplices. The petitioner alleged in his written complaint dated 28.3.2009 given to the police on 29.3.2009 that on 26.3.2009 at about 9.50 PM while he was on his way from his shop to his house on scooter, three goons on their motorcycles followed him and attacked him from behind with iron rod and stick. The petitioner fell on the road. The assailants put red chilly powder in his eyes and caused him grievous injuries and then left the spot Criminal Misc. No. M-17857 of 2009 -2- while the petitioner was unconscious thinking him to be dead. It was alleged that the aforesaid attack was committed by respondent no. 7 who had been threatening the petitioner for two years for getting the rented shop vacated from the petitioner. Versa Suri is the landlady of the shop. Respondent nos. 1 to 6 in their reply have alleged that after investigation, they found no evidence against respondent no. 7 and the real culprits could not be traced. Respondent no. 7 was also joined in investigation. Many persons from the vicinity of the place of occurrence were also joined. Consequently, un-traced report has been prepared in the matter and the same is pending consideration before higher officers. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case file. Learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently contended that respondent no. 7 had been threatening the petitioner for the last two years as mentioned in the FIR and it was respondent no. 7 who along with his accomplices committed the occurrence. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that representation Annexure P/3 dated 12.9.2005 had been given to Superintendent of Police, Faridabad regarding threats by respondent no. 7 as well as the landlady Versa Suri. However, respondent nos. 1 to 6 in the reply have denied having received any such representation from the petitioner. There is no material on record to depict that the petitioner had, in fact, given any such representation to Superintendent of Police, Faridabad. Moreover, this representation is dated 12.9.2005 i.e. three and half years prior to the occurrence in question whereas according to the FIR, respondent no. 7 was threatening the petitioner for the last two years Criminal Misc. No. M-17857 of 2009 -3- only. The petitioner has not placed any material on record to depict that the petitioner had taken any step regarding said threats extended by respondent no. 2 for two years before the alleged occurrence. In view of the reply, submitted by respondent nos. 1 to 6, they cannot be directed to arrest respondent no. 7 when no sufficient evidence could be collected against respondent no. 7. In view of the aforesaid, the instant petition is dismissed with liberty to the petitioner to avail of any other remedy available, in accordance with law. ( L.N. Mittal ) September 14, 2009 Judge 'dalbir'