LUXMI DEVI Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. filed by the petitioner seeking a direction to official respondents to register an FIR against the private respondents under Sections 147, 148, 149, 323, 452, 456, 458 and 506 IPC.

(2.) IN the petition it was alleged that respondent No. 6 through her attorney had sold a house to one Lalit Vikram for Rs. 35,000/- vide sale deed dated 23.3.1994 and possession of the house was also handed over by Smt. Shanti Devi to Lalit Vikram on the same day. It was alleged that Smt. Shanti Devi had appointed one Sanjay Bhasin as her attorney vide registered power of attorney dated 11.3.1994. It was alleged that subsequently on 19.1.2000, said Lalit Vikram, who had purchased the house from Shanti Devi, had sold the said house for Rs. 95,000/- vide registered sale deed dated 19.1.2000 to Vinay Verma, son of the petitioner and possession of the said house was also handed over by Lalit Vikram to the family of the petitioner on the same day. It was alleged that after getting the possession, the petitioner and her family started residing therein. It was alleged that on 31.1.2000, respondent No. 4 (S.H.O.) summoned the husband of the petitioner and her son and nephew to the Police Station and they were illegally detained in the Police Station. It was alleged that in the meanwhile respondents 5 to 10 alongwith two unidentified persons entered the house of the petitioner at about 8.30 p.m., when the petitioner and her minor children were present at the house and those persons threatened the petitioner by showing knives and forcibly broke the locks of the said house and also slapped the petitioner. It was alleged that later on petitioner came to know that respondent No. 4 had registered FIR No. 31 dated 31.1.2000 under Sections 452, 448, 543, 323, 511, 506, 142, 149 IPC against the petitioner and her family members. It was alleged that after the above occurrence, the petitioner approached respondent No. 4 (S.H.O.) for registration of the FIR against the culprits but the S.H.O. refused to do so. It was alleged that the SHO had already registered a false FIR at the instance of respondent No. 5 Jai Bhagwan against the petitioner and her family members. It was alleged subsequently petitioner sent registered letters dated 19.2.2000 to various police officers for taking action against the culprits, but no action was taken and thereafter the petitioner sent reminder dated 23.3.2000, but still no action has been taken. It was alleged that up till now, no action has been taken by the police against respondents 5 to 10.

(3.) I have heard the learned Counsel for the parties and have gone through the record carefully.