IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Crl. Misc. No. M-7808 of 2010 Date of decision : 11.5.2010 Prince Sharma @ Munish Kumar Sharma …. Petitioner Versus State of Punjab and Others ….. Respondents Present : Mr. R.S. Sidhu, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Shilesh Gupta, DAG, Punjab. *** S.S. SARON, J. The present petition has been filed by the petitioner for directing Inspector General of Police, Border Range, Amritsar (respondent No.2) to protect the life and liberty of the petitioner and his family members from Jaspal Singh, Station House Officer, City Tarn Taran (respondent No.3) who it is alleged is threatening the petitioner to involve him in a false case in case the petitioner and her mother do not withdraw the civil suit filed by them against Daljit Singh, Gurinder Singh, Dharam Singh @ Minku and Sawinder Singh Arora (respondents No.4 to 7) and also withdraw the application/representation made to the Inspector General of Police, Border Range, Amritsar (respondent No.2) against respondents No.4 to 7. A further prayer has been made for directing respondent No.2 to take action on the representation. Crl. Misc. No. M-7808 of 2010 [2] It is alleged that the petitioner is supporting his family by earning livelihood by running a auto-rikshaw. His father is suffering from brain tumor. It is alleged that respondents No.4 to 7 harassed the petitioner and the general public and they demanded money from the petitioner and her mother. Therefore, left with no other remedy, the petitioner along with his mother filed a suit for issuance of a decree for permanent injunction to the effect that respondents No.4 to 7 or their agents or associates be restrained from effecting any recovery illegally and with the help of local police and anti-social elements. It is submitted that the petitioner and his mother in the plaint (Annexure P2) have specifically averred that they have not taken any loan from respondents No.4 to 7 and there is no such liability towards the petitioner. When respondents No.4 to 7 came to know of the suit, they threatened the petitioner and his mother to withdraw the suit, otherwise they would involve the petitioner and his mother in a false criminal cases. When the petitioner refused to withdraw the case, respondents No.4 to 7 took away the ailing father of the petitioner to some un-known place. It is submitted that neither any DDR nor any FIR has been registered against any family member of the petitioner. The petitioner was coming to Chandigarh on 17.2.2010 for filing the petition in the High Court but he received a telephone call from Daljit Singh (respondent No.4) that in case the petitioner filed any petition in the High Court then Jaspal Singh, SHO, City Tarn Taran (respondent No.3) would involve all his family members in false cases. Later on respondents No.3 to 7 asked the petitioner either to give Rs.2 lacs or give them a pronote or cheque of Rs. 2 lacs. The mother of the petitioner and the petitioner were so Crl. Misc. No. M-7808 of 2010 [3] much threatened that they took signatures of the petitioner on the blank stamp paper and the signatures of the mother of the petitioner on a blank pronote. All this happened on 17.2.2010. On the next day, the petitioner sent a written representation (Annexure P2) to Inspector General of Police, Border Range, Amritsar (respondent No.2) and also to Commissioner, Amritsar. However, when respondents No.4 to 7 came to know about the representation made against them by the mother of the petitioner to respondent No.2, then SHO, Police Station City, Tarn Taran (respondent No.3) started calling the petitioner and his mother to the Police Station time and again. They were made to sit there through out the day and was asked to go in the evening. The petitioner and his mother were called in the Police Station on 25.2.2010, 27.2.2010, 2.3.2010 and 4.3.2010. Later on the petitioner came to know that his father was kept in illegal custody by respondent No.3 at the instance of respondents No.4 to 7, even though there is no complaint against him. Therefore, the petitioner apprehends that he and his family members would be implicated in a false case on the basis of blank stamp paper and pronote that were signed by the petitioner and his mother under threat. On 16.3.2010 a copy of the petition was given to the State counsel so as to enable him to seek instructions. A reply by way of an affidavit of Sh. Ashwani Kumar, PPS, Deputy Superintendent of Police, City Tarn Taran has been filed in which the allegations as made in the petition has been denied. It is submitted that on the written application that had been filed by Veera Sharma who is the mother of the petitioner and the petitioner against Surinder Singh Arora and others, it was mentioned that Surinder Singh Arora Crl. Misc. No. M-7808 of 2010 [4] and others were playing politics with the public and they had raised an un-necessary dispute with the family of the complainant and take money after putting pressure. In this regard one civil suit is also pending in the civil Court at Tarn Taran. It is mentioned in the application of the mother of the petitioner that on 17.2.2010, the persons mentioned therein came to their house and forcibly took her husband and also obtained blank pronote of Rs.2 lacs. It was alleged that the husband of Veera Sharma was not released. Later another application was submitted by Prince Sharma (petitioner) mentioning that on 20.2.2010 at about 10 a.m., his father had been taken from the house and his signatures were forcibly taken on a cheque and on a blank pronote. Both the applications were clubbed and during inquiry it was found that on 15.2.2010 Paramvir Singh @ Minku was coming to Amritsar and was standing at Tarn Taran bye-pass. In the meantime, Prince Sharma (petitioner) came there on his motorcycle and both went to Amritsar. Paramvir Singh @ Minku had taken a sum of Rs.2 lacs from his in-laws for the purpose of registration. They both went to pay obeisance at Gurudwara Baba Saheedan at Amritsar. There Paramvir Singh @ Minku handed over the bag containing Rs.2 lacs to Prince Sharma (petitioner) who disappeared from the spot along with bag containing Rs.2 lacs. Thereafter, a compromise was effected between the parties in the house of Municipal Commissioner, Kawaljit Singh which was recorded on a stamp paper in the presence of Sawinder Singh Arora, Municipal Commissioner (respondent No.7) and Kawaljit Singh, Municipal Commissioner. The petitioner promised to return the amount of Rs.2 lacs to Minku. It is also submitted that during inquiry it was found Crl. Misc. No. M-7808 of 2010 [5] that Veera Sharma in her application had mentioned that her husband had been abducted from her house by the above mentioned persons namely Sawinder Singh Arora, Municipal Commissioner, Kawaljit Singh, Municipal Commissioner etc. However, in the application submitted by Prince Sharma (petitioner), he had mentioned that his father was abducted on 20.2.2010. Therefore, in both the applications the date of occurrence are different. Besides, Darshan Parkash (father of the petitioner) and Manish Kumar @ Prince (petitioner) in their statements during inquiry submitted that Darshan Parkash (father of the petitioner) was abducted from Rohi bridge whereas in their application it was mentioned that he was abducted from the house. Therefore, there were inconsistencies in their statements. The civil suit filed by the petitioner and his mother is pending. The inquiry report which has been conducted is attached as Annexure R1. Keeping in view the facts and circumstances as have been submitted in the reply filed by the State on behalf of respondents No.1 and 2, no ground for issuance of any direction in exercise of the inherent jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 CrPC is made out. The case involves disputed questions and the petitioner in the circumstances may pursue his remedies in accordance with law. Crl. Misc. petition is accordingly dismissed. (S.S. SARON) JUDGE May 11, 2010 amit