CWP No. 18409 of 2009(O&M) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA, CHANDIGARH CWP No. 18409 of 2009(O&M) Date of decision July 29 , 2011 Surinderjit Singh and another ....... Petitioner Versus State of Punjab and others ........Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. KANNAN Present:- Mr. Gurcharan Dass , Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. Arvind Mittal Additional Advocate General, Punjab for respondent Nos. 1 to 3. Mr. H. S. Dhindsa, Advocate for respondent Nos. 4 and 6. Mr. Ashish Gupta, Advocate for respondent No.5. **** 1. Whether reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment ? No 2. To be referred to the reporters or not? No 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the digest?No K. Kannan, J (oral). 1. The petitioners have a grievance against the fourth respondent who is their grandfather for the latter's conduct which they term to be a fraud on their rights in selling some of their lands. The petitioners' contention is that they lost their father early and the fourth respondent in connivance with the other respondents is trying to grab the petitioners' right to the properties. It appears that the petitioners have given a complaint to the police through their maternal uncle complaining of the conduct of respondent Nos. 4 to 6 for appropriate action. The police CWP No. 18409 of 2009(O&M) 2 officials on investigation have found that civil suits have been filed against the grand father and others for declaration, injunction and other reliefs. 2. The writ petition is now filed for a direction against respondent Nos. 1 to 3 to protect the lives of the petitioners at the hands of respondent Nos. 4 to 6 and directing them to take action against respondent Nos. 4 and 5 for alleged interference of their share in the property. 3. Respondent Nos. 4 to 6 have filed a reply contending, inter alia, that if the property is ancestral the petitioners' shares are still available and they have been handed over to the petitioners and the property sold does not come within the share of the petitioners. If, on the other hand, the property is not even ancestral, the petitioners cannot claim any share in the property. Adverting to mortgages that have been made or sales have been created, it is contended that they cannot give rise to a cause for criminal complaint without establishing that the petitioners are entitled to a right in the property. 4. From the averments in the writ petition and in the reply respondent Nos. 4 to 6 it becomes evident that it is not as if, there are any properties standing in the name of the petitioners which have been sold by the fourth respondent. The petitioners' entitlement to the properties are the subject of litigation in a civil court and there cannot be a direction against the police to register a case or take action for any criminal offence for the right to possession depends on the proof of entitlement. Further, apart from a wild allegation that the petitioners in their minority are being harassed by the grand father and he is attempting to create harm to their safety, there is nothing material that is brought out to infer that the respondent Nos. 4 to 6 have committed any criminal offence for which actions are necessary. I perceive the whole dispute to be wholly civil in nature and the police were justified in turning down the request for any CWP No. 18409 of 2009(O&M) 3 intervention. The mandamus sought for cannot therefore be issued and the petitioners will after establishing their rights to the property through the litigation may approach the police for any assistance in protecting their possession, if ever any disturbance is done by criminal tress pass or if any proof is available for commission of criminal offence against respondent Nos. 4 to 6. 5. The writ petition is wholly without merit and is dismissed accordingly. (K. KANNAN) JUDGE July 29, 2011 archana