CRM No. M- 32123 of 2010 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRM No. M- 32123 of 2010 Decided on:- 08.08.2011 Sukha Singh ......Petitioner Versus State of Punjab .......Respondent Coram HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MAHESH GROVER Present: Mr. Vivek Thakur, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. BBS Teji, Sr. DAG, Punjab. **** MAHESH GROVER, J(Oral) This Court has perused the averments made in the petition and has also perused the reply filed in response to the notice of motion having been issued by this Court. The prayer made in the instant petition is that respondent no.3 be directed not to harass the petitioner and further direction be issued to the respondents to hand over the inquiry of FIR No.219 dated 10.9.2010, registered under Sections 15/61/85 of NDPS Act, Police Station Nakodar to some senior police officer. FIR No.219 dated 10.9.2010 stands registered against the petitioner under the provisions of Section 15/61/85 of the NDPS Act, Police Station Nakodar. The petitioner contends that he is not the person who is wanted by the respondents in the said FIR and question of his identity and involvement is in the commission of the said offence. Reply has been filed by way of affidavit of Rajinder Singh, PPS, Deputy Superintendent of Police, Sub Division, Nakodar, District Jalandhar (Rural) wherein in para nos. 1 and 2 thereof, he has submitted as follows:- “ That on the receipt of the present petition about the name of the petitioner, a detailed enquiry was conducted by ASI Surjit Singh Incharge Police Post, Shankar, Police Station Nakodar, District Jalandhar (Rural). It was revealed during the enquiry that CRM No. M- 32123 of 2010 2 accused/petitioner Sukha Singh was born from the wedlock of Dulla Singh and Channo residents of village Toti, Police Station Sultanpur Lodhi, District Kapurthala. Channo mother of Sukha Singh had died after his birth. The children of Dulla Singh were looked after by Walait Singh elder brother of Dulla Singh. Dulla Singh father of the petitioner had re-married. When Sukha Singh petitioner was 12 years old, he was taken by the husband of the sister of Dulla Singh namely Achhar Singh in village Mehat Pur Tehsil Nakodar, District Jalandhar. Sukha Singh petitioner frequently visits his original village Toti. The statements of Dulla Singh his father, Atma Singh Numberdar, Babu Ram Chowkidar and Gurlal Singh Sarpanch of village Toti were recorded to this effect. Sukha Singh petitioner is not the son of Achhar Singh as stated in the petition. The English translation of the report, the statements of Dulla Singh, Atma Singh Numberdar, Babu Ram Chowkidar and Gurlal Siungh Sarpanch duly attested are enclosed as Annexure R1 to R5 respectively for the kind perusal of this Hon'ble Court. The petition is liable to be dismissed. That 105 kilograms of poppy husk was recovered from the possession of accused/petitioner Sukha Singh and Mohd. Arman Aslam @ Raju by ASI Surjit Singh on 10.9.2010 in the area of village Nurpur Chatha, PS Nakodar, District Jalandhar. Mohd. Arman Aslam @ Raju was arrested at the spot, whereas Sukha Singh petitioner had managed to escape from the spot. He was identified by HC Mangal Singh No. 570 accompanying the police party. Sukha Singh is still absconding in the case and had not been arrested despite best efforts made by the police. The challan against Mohd. Arman Aslam was presented in the Court of Special Judge, Jalandhar on 9.11.2010. The case is now fixed for recording the evidence of prosecution witnesses on 14.12.2010. The petition is devoid of any merits and the same is liable to be dismissed. ” In view of the aforesaid, when inquiry has been conducted to the allegations set out by the petitioner in the instant petition and it has been found that the petitioner is involved in the commission of offence and his question about his identity which he has raised is false, I am of the opinion CRM No. M- 32123 of 2010 3 that this Court, in the exercise of its powers under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure has no mechanism to ascertain the veracity of allegations that has been made by the petitioner. There is, thus, no ground to interfere. Accordingly, dismissed. 08.08.2011 ( MAHESH GROVER) mamta JUDGE