Ajit Singh vs State of Punjab and Others

Rameshwar Singh Malik, J.—Feeling aggrieved against the alleged inaction on the part of respondent authorities, petitioner has approached this Court by way of instant petition u/s 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure, invoking its inherent jurisdiction for taking appropriate action against respondent Nos. 4 to 6. Notice of motion was issued and pursuant thereto, reply by way of affidavit dated 19.12.2011 of Bimal Kumar Sharma, Deputy Superintendent of Police, Shahkot, Jalandhar Rural, District Jalandhar, was filed. Thereafter, another affidavit of Yurinder Singh, Superintendent of Police, Jalandhar Rural, District Jalandhar, was filed on 22.2.2012.

Learned counsel for the State, on instructions from HC Resham Singh, Police Station Shahkot, submits that the matter was thoroughly enquired into. The relevant averments taken in para 4 of the affidavit read as under:-

That it is respectfully submitted that the status report obtained by the answering respondent from the Superintendent of Police (D) Jalandhar Rural further revealed that consequently, the then Senior Superintendent of Police Jalandhar Rural sought the legal opinion with regard to the inquiry carried out into the complaint submitted by the petitioner. The Ld. D.A. Legal vide his opinion dated 14.05.2011 opined that a prima facie case u/s 420/120-B IPC is made out. As a consequence thereof, the complaint further submitted by the petitioner, the inquiry report as well as the legal opinion given were considered by the then Senior Superintendent of Police Jalandhar Rural who vide his office order dated 16.05.2011 dis-agreed with the conclusion drawn by the Inquiry Officer as well as the legal opinion given by giving a detailed note with the observations that the complainant is not disputing his signatures on the documents but alleged that the same were taken under duress. However, at that point of time, no complaint was submitted in this regard. It was further written that since the matter is subjudice before the Ld. Civil Court, no action is required to be taken at this stage. With this finding, the then Senior Superintendent of Police Jalandhar Rural ordered for filing the complaint of the petitioner.

Learned counsel for the State further submits that in view of the above-said averments taken in the reply, the instant petition has been rendered infructuous and the same may be disposed of, as such. It is also to be noted that vide order dated 6.7.2012, the parties were directed to appear before the Mediation and Conciliation Centre of this Court. Report dated 28.8.2012 received from the Conciliation Centre shows that conciliation proceedings between the parties, have failed.

Faced with the above, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in view of the reply filed and the statement made by the learned counsel for the State, the present petition does not survive and the same may be disposed of, as infructuous, but liberty may be granted to the petitioner to pursue his remedy, in accordance with law. In view of the above statements made by the learned counsel for the parties, the instant petition is ordered to be disposed of as having been rendered infructuous. However, liberty is granted to the petitioner to pursue his remedy, in accordance with law.