PT NIRANJAN DASS Vs. COMMISSIONER OF POLICE DELHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) We have gone through the affidavits exchanged by the parties.

(2.) The petitioner was retained for performing pooja in Swarag Ashram Mandir near LIG FLATS, G-8 Area, Rajouri Garden, New Delhi by the Hariram Satsang Trust (Regd). The petitioner states that a room in the Mandir premises was in his occupation. Due to ill-health, he got two months leave from the Trust. On return when he wanted to collect his valuable and other important documents from the room, which he had been using, it was found that all valuables and other important documents are missing, including cash of Rs. 5000.00 On 6.6.1997, complaint (Annexure P-1) was handed over to the Station House Officer, Police Station Hari Nagar. Representation dated 26.8.1997 (Annexure P-11) was also sent. As no action was taken thereon, the petitioner sought direction in this petition against respondent No. 1 for registration of case and investigation as per law.

(3.) Respondent No. 1 in reply stated that the Petitioner was a Poojari in the Ashram and was performing Pooja and doing some other religous works in nearby area. On receipt of complaint inquiry was made, which revealed that he was not residing in Mandir premises but was residing in Vikas Puri. On 1.6.1997, complaint dated 31.5.1997 was also received from the President of the Ashram that after December 1996 the petitioner had not come to perform Pooja. Intimation was received from his daughter on telephone that due to ill health, the petitioner will not be able to come and some alternative arrangements be made by the Ashram. In March 1997, petitioner along with some of his relations came to the Ashram and demanded money for the services rendered by him earlier, whereupon some arguments were exchanged between the petitioner and President of the Trust. The petitioner thereafter left the Ashram threatening the President. On 27.5.1997, the President of the Trust recevied another telephonic call from the petitioner demanding Rs 11,000/-. It is stated in reply of respondent No.1 that the complaint dated 6.6.1997 was in retaliation to the complaint dated 31.5.1997 received on 1.6.1997 from the President of the Trust. Both the complaints were duly inquired into and during inquiry, it was revealed that the petitioner performed only Pooja and never resided in the premises of the said Mandir.