Ram Janki Verma vs State of Punjab

M.L. Singhal, J.

This Criminal Writ Petition has been filed by Ram Janki Vermapetitioner against the State of Punjab and others under Articles 226, 227 of the Constitution of India read with Section 482 of Cr.P.C. whereby he has prayed for issuing a writ in the nature of Mandamus directing the respondents No. 1 and 2 to register a case against respondents Nos. 3 and 4 and for its investigation.

Facts briefly stated by the petitioner in the petition are as follows : petitioner filed a suit for injunction against the respondents No. 3 and 4 restraining them from dispossessing him from the property bearing No. BXXIII5065 situated in Gali No. 4, Dharampura, Ludhiana otherwise than in the due course of law. Alongwith the plaint, he made an application under order 39 Rules 1 and 2 C.P.C. for the grant of temporary injunction. The Court directed the respondent Nos. 3 and 4 maintain status quo and also directed them not to disconnect his electricity and water connection. A local Commissioner was also appointed to visit the spot with a view to ascertaining the factual position. The local Commissioner visited the spot and gave report Annexure P2 on 10.5.1995. The respondent Nos. 3 and 4 tried to dispossess him with the help of some antisocial elements. Timely intervention of the police, however, saved him from forcible dispossession. On 16.3.1997, the respondent Nos. 3 and 4 with the help of some antisocial elements interfered with his possession. On 16.3.1997, at about 11 a.m., his wife and his three daughters were present at home. Vidyawanti and Manoj Kumar alongwith the antisocial elements came to the spot and threatened his wife and daughters that in case the property was not vacated till 20.5.1997, the petitioner and his family would be liquidated. His wife reported the matter to the police vide letter/petition dated 17.3.1997. The respondents did not relent and continued giving threats to his family. They occupied the room adjacent to the rooms in his occupation. He reported the matter to the police again vide letter/petition dated 27.3.1997 Annexure P4. On 28.3.1997, the respondent Nos. 3 and 4 alongwith the antisocial elements came to the petitioner''s house and beat him mercilessly and locked the main entrance door. He filed an application under JUDGMENT 39 Rule 2A C.P.C. in the Court of Civil Judge, Junior Division, Ludhiana, Annexure P5. No action was taken by the police with regard to the incident that took place on 28.3.1997. On 8.4.1997, the goondas of the respondent No. 4 alongwith Manoj Kumar occupied one room out of the total of two rooms which was the tenancy premises in occupation of the petitioner. They also locked the second room and are not allowing him to enter the two rooms of which he is tenant. He approached the police station, Division No. 6, Ludhiana but he was not heard. He made representation Annexure P6 to Sr. Superintendent of Police, Ludhiana but to no effect. On 13.4.1997, at about 10 a.m., the petitioner came to the house in dispute and tried to enter it but was prevented from entering the house by Manoj Kumar and the antisocial elements who were at his command. This matter was reported to the SHO Police Station, Division No. 6. No action, however, was taken in the matter. He sent letter/petition dated 15.4.1997 Annexure P7 to the higher authorities for action against Manoj Kumar and Vidyawanti.

It is averred that he is tenant in occupation of two rooms. The respondent Nos. 3 and 4 have dispossessed him. They are not allowing him to enter the house although he has household goods and articles namely television etc which are in it, which they have removed.

The respondent Nos. 3 and 4 contested the writ petition urging that they never tried to dispossess the petitioner forcibly from the premises in question. The petitioner was not given beatings by them. They never locked the main entrance door of the house, in dispute. Police investigated the facts alleged in letters/petitions dated 17.3.1997 and 27.3.1997 which were found false. The respondent No. 3 was given three injuries by the petitioner on 28.3.1997 and four injuries were given to her relative Krishan Dayal on 3.4.1997 by the petitioner. Those incidents were reported in the police. DDR No. 34 dated 5.4.1997 was recorded in P.P. Dharampura, P.S. Division No. 6, Ludhiana. The petitioner was in arrears of rent for the last more than two and a half years period. The petitioner left the premises of his own. The respondent Nos. 1 and 2 also opposed this petition in reply in the form of affidavit of Sh. Kanwarjit Singh PPS, DSP, Industrial Area, Ludhiana. Opposing this writ petition, it was urged that the version of the petition is false. Application made by the petitioner were enquired into by H.C. Harbhajan Singh. These were found false. No action was taken on those applications.

Report was recorded by the police at the instance of the petitioner either in the Daily Diary Register or in the FIR Register. In the written statement of Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 in the form of affidavit of DSP (sic), Industrial Area, Ludhiana, it is stated that every application moved by the petitioner was verified by H.C. Harbhajan Singh and he submitted one cumulative report showing that the applications were false and accordingly no action was taken on those applications. It is not clear whether the petitioner was or was not joined during the course of verification of those applications. The petitioner should have been joined during the course of verification of those applications. At the same time, the police is not bound to register the case on every information which may appear to be nebulous on the face of it to the police. In All India Institute of Medical Sciences Employees Union (Regd) v. Union of India and others, 1997(1) All India Criminal Law Reporter Page 218, their Lordships of the Supreme Court observed that when the information is laid with the police and no action is taken, the complainant can lay the complaint before the Magistrate having jurisdiction to take cognizance of the offence in view of Section 190 read with Section 200 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and the Magistrate is required to enquire into the complaint as provided in Chapter XV of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short, the `Code''). In case, the Magistrate after recording evidence finds prima facie case, instead of issuing process, he is empowered to direct the concerned Police to investigate into the offence under Chapter XII of the Code and to submit a report. If he finds that the complaint does not disclose any offence to take further action, he is empowered to dismiss the complaint under Section 203 of the Code. In case, he finds that the complaint/evidence recorded prima facie discloses offence, he is empowered to take cognisance of the offence, and would issue process to the accused. Without availing of this procedure, the petitioner is not entitled to approach the High Court by filing a writ petition and seeking a direction to conduct an investigation by the CBI which is not required to investigate into all or every offence.

In Binay Kumar Singh v. The State of Bihar with irtunjay Sharma and another v. The State of Bihar and Rajdeo Sharma and another v. The State of Bihar and Madan Mohan Sharma v. The State of Bihar and Krishan Kumar Sharma and another v. The State of Bihar and Bulak Sharma and others v. The State of Bihar and Surendra Prasad Singh @ Godil Sharma v. The State of Bihar, JT 1996(10) S.C. Page 79, their Lordships of the Supreme Court observed that the police incharge is not obliged to prepare FIR on any nebulous information and it is open to him to collect more information to consider whether a cognizable offence is committed.

In my opinion, this is not a case where Mandamus should be issued to the respondent No. 2 to register First Information Report forthwith on the basis of information contained in Annexure P7 sent to Sr. Superintendent of Police, Ludhiana, so that there is no injustice to either the petitioner or the respondent Nos. 3 and 4. It is ordered that the respondent No. 2 shall reduce the contents of application Annexure P7 into DDR of the Police Station and then enquire into the version as contained in Annexure P7 and if after enquiring into the truth or otherwise of the version contained in Annexure P7 the police feel that there is some truth in this version, then will register the case and that, too if cognizable offence is made out. Enquiry into the version contained in Annexure P7 will be made by an officer not below the rank of DSP posted in Police District Jagraon to be nominated by Senior Superintendent of Police, Police District Jagraon. This Criminal Writ Petition is accordingly disposed of with the said observations.