G BHOOPALAN Vs. D I G OF POLICE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner as well as learned Government Advocate appearing for respondents 1 to 3. No notice is required to be sent to the fourth respondent in view of the order being passed as under:- There was an agreement of sale, which emerged between the petitioner and the fourth respondent. Subsequently, the fourth respondent did not take steps to execute the sale deed in her favour. No suit was also filed to enforce the said agreement of sale. However, the fourth respondent, joining hands with the Inspector of Police, who is the third respondent herein, is harassing the petitioner. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, the third respondent is virtually doing Katta Panchayat.

(2.) IN these circumstances, without deciding as to whether the third respondent is actually perpetrating Katta Panchayat or not, I would like to observe that the police have no right to interfere with the matter, which is civil in nature. If any complaint is given, then adhering to the decision of the Apex Court reported in (2007) 1 S.C.C. Prakash Singh Badal And Another V. State Of Punjab & Others, they should act on the said complaint. If the complainant is not satisfied with the non registration of F.I.R., it is open to him to approach the Magistrate for getting it registered by police in terms of Section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, whereupon the Magistrate is required to send the complaint to the police, who is expected to register the complaint and send the same to the Magistrate. If there is any lapse on the part of the police, the learned Magistrate shall get his direction enforced.