Crl. Misc. No. M – 33674 of 2008(O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH -.- Crl. Misc. No. M – 33674 of 2008(O&M) Date of decision:- 1.4.2010 Gurbachan Singh ... Petitioner Versus State of Punjab & Ors. ... Respondents. CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GURDEV SINGH Present:- Mr. M.S.Sachdev, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. A.S.Brar, Sr. DAG, Punjab. Mr. Sanjiv Pandit, Advocate, for the complainant. Gurdev Singh, J (oral) Heard. This petition has been filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure by Gurbachan Singh- petitioner for issuance of direction to respondents No. 1 and 2 directing respondent No.3 & 4 not to harass him at the instance of respondent No.5 on the basis of false complaint, as the said respondent is harassing him time and again by moving the false applications before the police and after the conducting of the enquiry he was found to be innocent. He has also prayed for providing adequate security for the protection of his life and liberty and property and that of his family members at the hands of respondent No.5, who is political person and is continuously threatening him by making false complaints and by keeping him under fear and anxiety that he would be engaged in anti- Crl. Misc. No. M – 33674 of 2008(O&M) -2- social allegations. Notice of motion was issued on 17.3.2009 after the learned counsel for the petitioner made a statement that the petitioner had entered into an agreement and he is ready to return the remaining amount of earnest money. The controversy revolves around the agreement dated 27.11.2007, which was entered into between Gurbachan Singh, petitioner as the first party and Gagan Ajit Singh – respondent No.5 and others as the second party. Vide that agreement Gurbachan Singh has agreed to sell 14 Kanals and 8 Marlas of land in favour of respondent No.5 and others for a total sale consideration of Rs.1,02,00,000/- and received Rs.60.00 lacs as earnest money. As per the terms thereof the sale deed was to be executed on 25.1.2008 and in the event of the failure of the first party to execute the same, he was to return the double of earnest money and in case of such default on the part of the second party, the earnest money was to be forfeited. It is an admitted fact that none of the parties filed any civil suit though the sale deed was not executed on the agreed date. At the time of arguments, it was submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner has already returned Rs. 23 lacs and that the petitioner is ready to repay the balance amount of Rs.37 lacs. However, it was submitted by learned counsel for respondent No.5 that his client is not ready to accept that amount. Faced with this situation, this petition is to be decided on merits. According to the petitioner respondent No.5 is General Secretary of Akali Dal Youth Wing and as such has political support. He received a Crl. Misc. No. M – 33674 of 2008(O&M) -3- notice from the office of DSP, Jalandhar that a complaint has been filed against him by that respondent for having committed fraud by not paying money under the agreement. After enquiry, the complaint was ordered to be filed as the matter was found to be of civil nature. Thereafter, another complaint was filed by respondent and enquiry was conducted by the DSP, who came to the conclusion that the dispute was regarding the money and was of civil nature. Thereafter, this respondent starting giving threatening calls at his house and sending people having political background to pressurise him, upon which approached respondent No.2 (SSP Jalandhar), but no action was taken by him. In the reply filed by respondents No. 1 to 5, it has been admitted that the complaints are being filed by respondent No.5 against the petitioner repeatedly and every time it was found that the dispute between them is regarding the money and is of civil nature, as such no action is required to be taken. It is pertinent to note that the first application, in that regard filed by respondent No.5, is dated 30.7.2008. The second is dated 1.9.2008 and the third one is dated 17.9.2008. That shows that respondent no.5 is abusing the process of law by repeatedly moving applications regarding the same matter before the police. It is also to be taken notice that the police without looking into those aspects is holding inquires repeatedly into the same matter. In order to secure the ends of justice, it is necessary to issue a direction to respondents no. 1 to 4 not to entertain any further application/complaint of respondent No.5 regarding the same matter and to hold further enquiry. Direction is issued accordingly. Crl. Misc. No. M – 33674 of 2008(O&M) -4- The S.S.P (Rural), Jalandhar, is directed to look into the matter and in case he finds any such protection is required to be provided to the petitioner and his family members, to make order accordingly. The petition is disposed of with the above observation. April 1, 2010 (Gurdev Singh) tripti Judge