Kuldleep Singh vs State of Punjab and Others

Daya Chaudhary, J.—This petition has been filed u/s 482 Code of Criminal Procedure for issuance of a direction to responden No. 3 not to harass the Petitioner at the instance of Respondent No. 4.

Notice of motion was issued in the case on 6th October, 2010. In response to the notice of motion, reply on behalf of Respondents No. 1 to 3 has been filed which is on record.

Learned Counsel for the Petitioner submits that three inquiries were conducted against the Petitioner and in all inquiries, he was found innocent but in-spite of that, he is being harassed by the police time and again by calling him to the police station without any reason. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner further submits that in spite of three inquiries, no action is being taken against Respondent No. 4 in-spite of the fact that false complaint was lodged by him and no action has been taken u/s 182 IPC which in itself shows that official Respondents are in collusion with Respondent with No. 4.

The case came up for hearing on 9th February, 2011 and following order was passed:

The present petition has been filed u/s 482 Cr.P.C. for issuance of direction to Respondent No. 3 and not to harass the Petitioner at the instance of Respondent No. 4.

Learned Counsel for the Petitioner submits that three inquiries were conducted against the Petitioner and he was found innocent but in spite of that the Petitioner is being harassed by the police time and again without any reason.

Reply has been filed on behalf of the State, wherein it has been stated that on the basis of application moved on behalf of Respondent No. 4, an inquiry was conducted by DSP (D) Moga and the Petitioner was found innocent. Second time also inquiry was conducted by DSP Moga and again the Petitioner was found innocent vide inquiry report dated 20.12.2006. Thereafter, again a complaint was made by Respondent No. 4 and inquiry was conducted by the In-charge EO Wing, Moga and Petitioner was found innocent. Lastly it has also been mentioned that on the basis of complaint dated 31.3.2010, inquiry has been marked which is still pending and no action has been taken as yet.

I have heard the learned Counsel for the parties and perused the record .

Admittedly, three inquiries have been conducted and the Petitioner was fund innocent. It appears that Respondent No. 4 is filing complaints time and again and every time inquiry has been conducted and the Petitioner was found innocent. It is also not on record that if the allegations mentioned in the complaint were found incorrect, why action against Respondent No. 4 was not taken and why the fourth inquiry was ordered.

The Senior Superintendent of Police, Moga is directed to file an affidavit to the effect as what was justification for conducting inquiries time and again in the matter and why action was not taken against Respondent No. 4 if the allegations made in the complaint were found incorrect.

Adjourned to 25.2.2011.

Copy of the order be given to the learned State Counsel under the signature of Special Secretary.

Learned Counsel for the State also admits the factum of three inquiries conducted against the Petitioner. It has also been mentioned in the reply filed on behalf of Respondents No. 1 to 3 that Respondent No. 4 moved an application against the present Petitioner and on the basis of that complaint, an inquiry was conducted by DSP, Moga and Petitioner was found innocent. The second inquiry was conducted by Incharge EO Wing, Moga and again the Petitioner was found innocent. Learned Counsel for the State further submits that since the allegation mentioned in the complaint filed by Respondent No. 4 were found to be false/incorrect and Petitioner was not found involved in those allegations and now the Calendra u/s 182 IPC has been filed against Respondent No. 4 for filing false complaint.

Heard the arguments of learned Counsel for the parties and have gone through the documents available on the file.

Since action has been taken against Respondent No. 4 by the police, no further action is required and the present petition has become infructuous.

Dismissed as infructuous.