Judgment:
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Criminal Misc.
No.M-40397 of 2013 (O&M) Date of decision: July 23, 2014 Balwinder Singh ...Petitioner Versus State of Punjab and others ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE Mr.JUSTICE INDERJIT SINGH Present: Mr.Sukhjit Singh, Advocate, for the petitioner.
Mr.Deepak Garg, Assistant Advocate General, Punjab, for the respondent-State.
Mr.Tejvir Singh, Advocate, for respondent Nos.4 to 7.
**** INDERJIT SINGH, J.
Balwinder Singh has preferred this petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C.for issuance of direction to respondent No.2 to safeguard his life and liberty from the hands of respondent Nos.3 to 7 and further issuance of direction to respondent No.3 not to harass and humiliate him and his family members and not to involve him in false criminal case at the behest of respondent Nos.4 to 7.
Notice of motion was issued.
Respondents through counsel appeared and contested this petition.
Reply by way of affidavit of Paramjit Singh Gill, IPS, Commissioner of Police, Ludhiana on behalf of respondents-State has been filed whereas no reply on behalf of respondent Nos.4 to 7 has been filed.
As argued by learned counsel for the petitioner respondent No.3 Jagjit Singh, SHO, Police Station Moti Nagar, Ludhiana is giving threat to the petitioner at the instance of Malhotra Mamta 2014.08.07 10:28 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh Criminal Misc.
No.M-40397 of 2013 [2].respondent Nos.4 to 7 (private respondents).On the other hand, learned State counsel has brought to the notice of this Court that regarding agreement to sell, civil proceedings are pending.
Jagjit Singh, SHO-respondent No.3 has already been transferred from that police station.
It is also contended by the learned State counsel that inquiry has been got conducted into the allegation levelled by the petitioner.
No such threat has been found to be given from the side of Jagjit Singh.
I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned State counsel as well as learned counsel for respondent Nos.4 to 7 and have gone through the record.
In the reply, filed on behalf of respondents-State, it is stated that the Commissioner of Police directed ACP Crime, Ludhiana to conduct a detailed inquiry into the allegations levelled by the petitioner against respondent No.3-Jagjit Singh, SHO, Police Station Moti Nagar, Ludhiana.
The Commissioner of Police also called the petitioner and his wife and personally heard them regarding their grievances against respondent No.3.
It is also stated that the detailed inquiry was got conducted by ACP Crime Ludhiana and from that inquiry it transpired that Amarjit Kaur-respondent No.4 agreed to sell one house.
It is stated in the reply that civil suit is pending before the Court of Civil Judge, Ludhiana.
It is also stated in the reply that as one representation has been submitted by the petitioner regarding transfer of inquiry proceedings from SHO, Police Malhotra Mamta 2014.08.07 10:28 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh Criminal Misc.
No.M-40397 of 2013 [3].Station Meharban, Ludhiana, therefore, the same was entrusted to Inspector Jagjit Singh, SHO, Police Station Moti Nagar, Ludhiana.
Thereafter Inspector Jagjit Singh called the petitioner and other party and both the parties mutually effected compromise with the intervention of respectable.
During the inquiry, the allegations against Jagjit Sinjgh,SHO, have been found to be false and have not been substantiated during the couRs.of inquiry.
Further, the order dated 01.11.2013 (Annexure P-1).passed by the Civil Judge (Junior Division).Ludhiana, Legal Notice (Annexure P-2) given to Amarjit Kaur on behalf of Paramjit Kaur wife of Balwinder Singh and letter (Annexure P-3) given to Commissioner of Police Luidhiana have been placed on record.
There is no other document on record to show that any threat has been given by Jagjit Singh SHO to the petitioner.
Furthermore, as argued that the SHO has already been transferred to Police Station Kotwali, Ludhiana from Police Station, Moti Nagar, Ludhiana shows that there is no threat to the life and liberty of the petitioner.
Therefore, from the above discussion, I do not find any merit in the present petition and the same is dismissed.
However, the petitioner is at liberty to approach the competent authority if in future he feels threat to his life and liberty from the hands of respondent.
July 23, 2014 (INDERJIT SINGH) mamta JUDGE Malhotra Mamta 2014.08.07 10:28 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh