SHARDA SINGH Vs. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Through the present writ petition the petitioner sought for a writ of mandamus upon the officers of the police station at Tindwari, district Banda, for directing them not to harass the petitioner or his family members by making any raid or search in the late hours of the night. The further prayer was made for a command upon the first three respondents to take action against Sri Bansi Lal Savita, the then Station House Officer, Tindwari, Banda, after an enquiry by C.B.C.I.D. in the matter. The petitioner also prayed for adequate compensation for unnecessary inroads into his privacy by the aforesaid Bansi Lal Savita without any reason.

(2.) Bereft of the unnecessary details, it was the case of the petitioner that he was a respectable agriculturist of the area and certain persons were having some ill-feeling against him and they tried to take over forcible possession of some land of the petitioner. A report was made to the Tindwari police station on 23-9-95, but no action was taken. A civil suit was also filed by him praying for an injunction against the wrongdoers. After service of the notice in the civil suit, a Commissioner was appointed to inspect the spot. Still then these persons continued with their forcible measures. These wrongdoers were allegedly in collusion with the Station House Officer of Tindwari and the police officer insisted that the matter should be compromised and the civil suit should be withdrawn, to which the petitioner did not agree. He was threatened with implication in some or the other criminal case. It was asserted that on 15-11-1995 in the late hours of the night the respondent Bansi Lal Savita raided the house of the petitioner without any justification and had, thus, affected his fundamental rights. A report was made on the next day to the higher police officers against Sri Savita and this also enraged the entire police machinery. A copy of the complaint dated 16-11-1995 was also sent to the DIG and, subsequently, to the Governor of Uttar Pradesh. The son of the petitioner also sent an application by registered cost to the Director General of Police, Lucknow, in respect of the illegal raid. When no redress could be had, the present writ petition was filed.

(3.) On the date of presentation of the writ petition, the Division Bench desired that an affidavit should come as to why no FIR was being registered and as to how illegal raids were made in the late hours of the night in the residence of the petitioner.