IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Criminal Misc M-34788 of 2010 Date of decision: 26.11.2010 Ram Avtar …Petitioner Versus State of Punjab and ors …Respondents Present: Mr PS Jammu, Advocate, for the petitioner. S.S.SARON, J. This petition has been filed under Section 482 CrPC seeking directions to SSP Ferozepur (respondent-2) to protect the life and liberty of the petitioner and his family members from respondents-3 and 4 namely Gurbhej Singh SHO and Kartar Singh ASI respectively, of PS Khuhian Sarver, who, it is alleged, are harassing and humiliating the petitioner and his family members and are not allowing him to enter his house and agricultural fields at the instance of Manphool, Banwari Lal, Rajinder Kumar and Usha Bishnoi – respondents-5 to 8 respectively. According to the petitioner, the respondents are owners of land on which the petitioner is a tenant. He is cultivating this land for the last 13 years continuously on Batai @ 1-1/2 share. The petitioner with his efforts has made the barren land cultivable. Manphool – respondent-5, the owner of the land, decided to install a brick kiln in the said land but the Bank refused to grant him loan because of his old age. It is alleged that Manphool transferred 6 acres of land in the petitioner’s name so as to take a loan. However, the Bank refused to grant loan as his land was within the Cr Misc M-34788 of 2010 2 precincts of the Wild Life Sanctuary. The petitioner then transferred the said land back in the name of Manphool. It is alleged that the transfer of land first in the name of the petitioner by Manphool and then by the petitioner in the name of Manphool created a doubt in the mind of respondents-6 to 8. Therefore, they tried to oust the petitioner from the land. The petitioner had, however, sown wheat crop on the land, but in the month of April 2010, respondents-5 to 8 forcibly took away the harvested wheat crop. The matter was reported to the local Police, but no action was taken against respondents-5 to 8, who are influential persons of the area and are big landlords. Now, the petitioner has sown cotton crop in the land being a tenant of respondents-5 to 8. However, these respondents, with the help of local Police, have time and again tried to turn out the petitioner from the land. The cotton crop is ripe but respondents-5 to 8 have, with the help of 30-35 unknown persons, forcibly plucked the cotton crop sown by the petitioner. Whenever the petitioner tries to enter his agricultural land, it is alleged that respondents-5 to 8 with their musclemen, threaten and beat the petitioner and his family members. The matter has also been reported to the local Police by the petitioner. Besides, it was compromised in the Panchayat and the Panchayatnama (P1) was scribed on 29.9.2010. However, despite this, respondents-5 to 8, in connivance with respondents-3 and 4, are humiliating and harassing the petitioner. The petitioner explained his position to the SDM Abohar, but till date, no action has been taken. A copy of the representation dated 27.9.2010 (P2) given to the SDM is placed on record. The matter was also brought to the notice of DSP Abohar and DGP, Punjab Police, but no action has been taken. It is also submitted that the petitioner filed a civil suit for permanent injunction and the learned Civil Court, vide order dated 21.10.2010 (P3) has passed an order of status quo Cr Misc M-34788 of 2010 3 with regard to the existing position of the property at the spot. Despite the status quo order, it is alleged that respondents-5 to 8 are harassing and threatening the petitioner and the Police is not taking any action. After giving my thoughtful consideration to the matter, it may be noticed that the petitioner claims protection with respect to the enjoyment of his land which is under his cultivation as a tenant of respondents-5 to 8. In this regard, it may be noticed that the petitioner has already filed a suit for permanent injunction against respondents-5 to 8 along with an application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC seeking ad interim injunction. The learned Additional Civil Judge (Sr Divn) Abohar, vide order dated 21.10.2010 (P3) after hearing arguments on behalf of the petitioner who is plaintiff in the suit, found a prima facie case made out in his favour. Accordingly, in the meantime, both the parties were directed to maintain status quo regarding the existing position of the property at the spot. Therefore, the order of status quo being already there, this Court in exercise of its inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 CrPC is not to enforce or implement the order of status quo. The petitioner has his remedy before the learned civil Court itself, which, he may avail in accordance with law. In case the petitioner is in possession of the land and the order of status quo in his favour is being violated or others are interfering in it, he can initiate necessary proceedings in terms of Order 39 Rule 2-A of the CPC. However, this Court in exercise of its inherent jurisdiction is not to convert itself to a trial Court and start enforcing orders of injunction. In the circumstances, no ground for interference by this Court in exercise of its inherent jurisdiction is made out. The petitioner may avail his remedy in accordance with law. This petition stands disposed of accordingly. Cr Misc M-34788 of 2010 4 26.11.2010 ( S.S.SARON ) ASR Judge