V M SINGH Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The grievance of the petitioner is that on his complaints dated 25.9.1996 and 7.10.1996 (Annexures-A-4 and A.7 respectively) F.I.R. has not been registered by the respondents. Consequently, direction is sought against the 'respondents to register F.I.R. on the basis of two complaints, to direct investigation by Special Task Force or any other independent Investigating Agency and to take action against respondents 2 and 3 for inaction in not registering the F.I.R.

(2.) The petitioner claims to be owner in possession of agricultural land situated at Village Punjab Khor, Delhi, by virtue of a family settlement and decree passed on 24.8.1993 and it is stated that on 25.9.1996 at about 9.30 a.m. he was informed by Umed Singh, the Manager of his agricultural land that Mrs. Amteshwar Anand along with couple of other persons had come to the land, physically man handled Umed Singh and other servants on the farm, snatched the key of the Kothi from Chowkidar, Shri Sheesh Pal. The persons accompanying through the servants out of the farm as well as furniture of the Kothi and with the help of tractor destroyed Jawar crop. On receiving report, the petitioner got the information conveyed to the police on phone and also rang up the concerned D.C.P. At about 10.30 a.m. the petitioner arrived at the agricultural land and found that Mrs. Anand had gained access to the property and was sitting outside. One Col. Bansal was also sitting there. For this act of criminal trespass, a complaint in writing was lodged at about 11.30 a.m. on 25.9.199 for taking action against Mrs. Anand, Col. Bansal, Narinder Nath, Ex-Pradhan; Budh Ram, driver and others. As F.I.R. was not registered on this complaint, the petitioner on 4.10.1996 submitted another complaint (Annexure- A.6),which was followed by another complaint (Annexure-A.7) in which prayer had been made by the petitioner to register an F.I.R. against Smt. Kirpal Kaur and Km. Guneeta along with Mrs. Anand for cheating, conniving and playing fraud. Despite two subsequent complaints dated 22.10.1996 and 26.2.1997 (Annexures-A-8 and A.9), F.I.R. had not been registered and it is alleged that the conduct of S.H.O. appeared to be somewhat partisan because of the fact Mrs. Anand happens to be the mother of Mrs. Menka Gandhi. Due to in action on the part of the police, the petitioner was left with no other alternative except to approach the Court.

(3.) After show cause notice was issued, reply has been filed by Inspector Inder Singh phaiya, S.H.O., Police Station Khanjhawab, Delhi, wherein it is stated that on 25.9.1996 at about 11.05 a.m. an information was received that a quarrel was going on at the petitioner's farm house. This information was recorded in the daily diary vide D.D.No.lS-A on 25.9.1996. The same was marked and sent to A.S.I. Dharam Singh through constable Ram Karan, since A.S.I. was already in Village Punjab Khor. On another call, the S.H.O. and A.C.P. also reached the spot. S.H.O. version of the incident on his return was recorded in D.D.No.l8A on 25.9.1996 at about 7.15 p.m. It is stated that apparently there was no quarrel but there was exchange of words between the petitioner on the one side and Smt. Atniteshwari Anand on the other side. Statements of persons present on both sides Were also recorded. Both the parties claimed to be the owner of the land and produced their respective documents.There was no sign of any mischief by damaging the crop etc. at the spot. Parties also informed that civil dispute regarding the land was already pending in the High Court. The S.H.O. took possession of the documents produced by the parties,who were directed to maintain peace and not to enter into quarrel. It is also submitted that the petitioner gave a complaint in writing to the S.H.O. at the spot but no case was registered from tine facts and circumstances, which were brought to the notice of the S.H.O. and A.C.P. at the spot. All papers were thereafter sent by S.H.O. regarding the alleged trespass for legal opinion because of civil dispute pending in the High Court and for necessary action to be taken thereupon. The papers were examined by the Chief Prosecutor, North West District on 27.9.1996, who gave his opinion on 3.10.1996 as under: