IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRM No. M-9828 of 2010 (O&M) Date of decision : 5.10.2010 Jaspal Singh and another …. Petitioners Versus State of Punjab and Others ….. Respondents Present : Mr. Sanjay Jha, Advocate for the applicants/petitioners. Mr. VPS Sidhu, AAG, Punjab. *** S.S. SARON, J. This petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure has been filed for directing the release of the petitioners’ tractors bearing registration Nos.HR04-745/1990 and PND-8506 from the Brick-Kiln of Ashok Garg @ Genta Babu (respondent No.5), owner of Bhatta No.9, S.R. Bricks, Bagpur Gangra, P.S. Jalalabad, District Moga. According to the petitioners, they are the owners of the aforesaid two tractors and they were contacted by respondent No.5 at their native village who hired both the tractors of the petitioners. The rate was also agreed upon. On demand being raised for making payments, respondent No.5 refused to make payments. Copy of this petition was given to the learned State counsel so as to enable him to seek instructions in the matter. Reply by way of affidavit of Sh. Sukhdev Singh, PPS, Deputy Superintendent of Police, Dharmkot, District Moga, CRM No. M-9828 of 2010 (O&M) [2] Punjab has been filed on behalf of respondents No.1, 3 and 4. It is submitted that no previous complaint in this regard was received by the Senior Superintendent of Police, District Moga and if the petitioners would have approached respondent No.3 or any other police officials then definitely they would have been heard sympathetically by them. In any case, Parveen Kumar ASI, Police Station Kot-Ise-Khan inquired into the matter by recording DDR No.22 dated 3.10.2010 (Annexure R1). The site of the Brick Kiln was inspected by ASI Parveen Kumar in the presence of Lambardar Gurjant Singh of village Gagra. The Munim Ashok Kumar Garg @ Genta (respondent No.5) was present and he stated that he did not know the petitioners personally and their vehicles i.e. their tractors or any other articles were not lying in the Brick Kiln. The petitioners had worked under the supervision of Jammadar (Bharai) and he used to give the payment of the labourers. They had no concern with the petitioners. The statement (Annexure R2) of Ashok Kumar Garg, Munim of the Brick Kiln has been placed on record. It is stated that no truth was found by ASI Parveen Kumar as regards the allegations made in the writ petition. It is also submitted that no complaint regarding the high-handedness of respondent No.5 was ever received in the office of Senior Superintendent of Police, Moga (respondent No.3) or any other police officials. It is submitted that the allegations levelled by the petitioners against the local police are false and frivolous. The case relates to the disputed questions of fact. The grievance of the petitioners is that the amount had been embezzled by misutilization of the tractors by respondent No.5 and the tractors are not being released. The said allegations have been inquired into by ASI Parveen Kumar and found to be CRM No. M-9828 of 2010 (O&M) [3] false. Besides, it is mentioned that no complaint was ever submitted before the police authorities. In the circumstances, in exercise of the inherent jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 CrPC no ground for interference is made out. The petitioners may, if so advised, approach the Officer Incharge of the concerned Police Station setting out their grievances and show that a cognizable offence is made out or not. Accordingly, the Crl. Misc. petition is dismissed. (S.S. SARON) JUDGE October 5, 2010 amit