IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Criminal Misc 17739 of 2009 and Criminal Misc M-9292 of 2009 Date of decision: 15.4.2009 Nagina Singh …Petitioner Versus State of Punjab etc. …Respondents Present: Mr RS Malhotra, Advocate for the petitioner. S.S.SARON, J. Criminal Misc 17739 of 2009 Submits that copy of Annexure P2 attached with the petition is of some other case, therefore, it is submitted that Annexure P2 attached with the criminal misc application be taken on record and substituted for that originally filed with the main criminal misc petition. The Criminal Misc application is allowed and the application dated 23.3.2009 (Annexure P2) attached with the criminal misc application is taken on record and substituted for that originally filed with the main petition. This application stands disposed of. Criminal Misc M-9292 of 2009 This petition under Section 482 CrPC has been filed for directing respondents-1 to 3 to protect the life and liberty of the petitioner and to provide the petitioner adequate security. Criminal Misc 17739 of 2009 and Criminal Misc M-9292 of 2009 2 According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, the petitioner is in possession of land measuring 4 Kanals comprised in Khasra No.4/1/1 which, it is alleged, he has purchased from Smt Bawi. Mutation to this effect, it is submitted, has also been entered in the name of the petitioner. It is further submitted that the petitioner is also in possession of land measuring 8 Kanals comprised in Khasra No.4/1/2 as a tenant for the last 24-25 years. The petitioner is to harvest his wheat crop in the second week of April 2009. The petitioner, it is alleged, filed a suit against Darshan Singh and Pritam Singh sons of Sant Singh (respondents-4 and 5) for restraining them from interfering in the peaceful possession of the petitioner in the aforesaid land measuring 12 Kanals. The suit was partly decreed on 27.11.2003. Respondents-4 and 5 filed an appeal which was dismissed by the learned Additional District Judge, Gurdaspur on 29.7.2004. Despite that, it is submitted that respondents-4 and 5 as also respondent-6 are interfering in the land of the petitioner. After giving my thoughtful consideration to the mater, it may be noticed that the dispute between the parties is of a civil nature and according to the petitioner, he has a civil Court decree of permanent injunction in his favour. However, the copy of the judgment and decree has not been placed on record. Besides, in case the petitioner has a decree for permanent injunction in his favour and there is a breach of injunction order, the proper course for him is to avail his remedy under Order 21 Rule 32 CPC. This Court, in exercise of its inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 CrPC, is not to enforce the injunction order that has been passed in favour of the petitioner. Criminal Misc 17739 of 2009 and Criminal Misc M-9292 of 2009 3 In view of the above, there is no merit in this petition and the same is accordingly dismissed. 15.4.2009. ( S.S.SARON ) ASR Judge