q 22# $- 8 IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI ..... Petitioner Mr. D. Verma, Advocate. ..... Respondent VIr. Rajesh Mahajan, Additional Standing Counsel with SI Sunil Kumar. CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MUKTA GUPTA ORDER 20.10.2011 By this petition the Petitioner seeks protection for himself and his family members, besides action against the accused persons who are giving threats and hindering in the smooth administration ofjustice. The grievance as set out by the Petitioner is that the brother of the petitioner Prabhati Ram Sharma, was the original member of the society namely Delhi School Teachers Co-operative House Building Society. The brother of the Petitioner paid subscription as demanded from time to time. Subsequently on 16th November, 1968, the brother of the Petitioner transfened all his rights, title, claim, privileges and facilities in favour of the Petitioner vide letter dated 6tl'November, 1968. The Petitioner, thereafter w.P.(cRI-) szrlzjLr KALU RAM SHARMA Through: versus GOVT OF NCT OF DELFII Through: o w.P.(cRL) s21/2011 Page 1 of 4 Signing Date:05.09.2024 17:03:50 Certify that the digital and physical file have been compared and the digital data is as per the physical file and no page is missing. Signature Not Verified I deposited the necessary amount and received a letter dated 4th April 1976 regarding the invitation to attend the GBM of the Delhi School Teachers Co- operative Flouse Building Society. Subsequently, there was irregularity in the allotment of the plot and it was found that the membership was doubtful under the relevant provisions. The Petitioner filed complaint for wrongful allotment of the plots before the Registrar, Co-operative Society, Parliament Street. The Petitioner cornplains that while she was redressing her grievance against the iregularities committed in the allotment she received threats. She states that on 20th March,2011 some unknown persons approached the son of the Petitioner and threatened him stating that if they do not withdraw the case they would eliminate the entire family. In this regard they gave complaints to the Commissioner of Police and the SHO, PS Farsh Bazar. The Petitioner also gave the phone number of her son which was being used. In the said complaint it was stated that she received two phone calls fi'om an unknown number. On a notice being issued a status repoft has been filed by the SHO, PS Farsh Bazar. As per the status report, the Petitioner had filed petition before the Registrar, Co-operative House Building Society regarding misuse, misconduct and high level corruption. After the Petitioner lost in the said w.P.(cRL) s21/2011 Puge 2 of 4 6 petition he filed a revision before the Financial Commissioner which was also disrnissed. As regard the receiving the threat from mobile No.9255787920 on mobile no. 9868863432 of the Petitioner's son, an inquiry was conducted and it was found that mobile no. 9255787920 was a STD Booth number at district Jind, Haryana. As per the status report the allegations regarding extending threats at Civil . Lines area to the Petitioner, could not be substantiated. Fufther, since the threat was on the phone no cogntzable offence under Section 506 IPC was made out. Hence no FIR was registered. As per the SHO there is no imminent threat to the petitioner and no protection is called for. A perusal of the status report and the facts mentioned in the present petition reveal that the basic grievance of the Petitioner is regarding allotment of plot on account of being member of the society. As regards the threats extended no tirne, date etc. has been given. Further on verification of the phone was done and it was found that a single call was made from a STD booth of District Zind,Haryana. Thereafter no such threat has been received to the petitioner. Since the Respondent have already assessed and come to the conclusion that there is no threat to the Petitioner, I do not find it to be a w.P.(cRL) s21/2011 Page 3 of 4 fit case for directing the Respondents to provide protection to the petitioner' However it is clarified that in case the petitioner has any specific complaint, he may get the same lodged before the SHO concerned who will take action in accordance with law. Petition is dismissed. ocToBER 20, 20ll tvnt w.P.(cRL) s21/2011 xMlrrr- "MUKTA GUPTA, J. Page 4 of 4