SUBE SINGH Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE grievance of the petitioner is that the private respondent No.7 Raj Kumar son of Sh. Mangal had leased out two and half acres of land for valuable consideration of Rs.60,000.00 as batai which amount has not been paid to the petitioner for the cotton crop sowed. The amount of Rs.60,000.00 was to be paid by the petitioner to Raj Kumar. On the complaint of the petitioner expressed through his legal notice (Annexure P-2) served through counsel was marked to the Station House Officer, Police Station, Barwala for conducting enquiry into the claim. The complaint was examined and enquiry was conducted by the Police. The statements of different people were recorded including Panchayat members. The petitioner chose not to associate himself with the enquiry. The matter was examined at the Panchayat level as well. The petitioner did not come forward to reap the crop which Raj Kumar was compelled to reap in the presence of the Panchayat. The produce was sold in the local grain market at Barwala and receipt of sale was handed over to one Om Parkash, nephew of the petitioner. The enquiry found that the petitioner was liable to make payment to Raj Kumar. The dispute was found to be one of a civil nature. The complaint was filed/closed by the police.

(2.) NOT satisfied with the dispensation, the petitioner made a fresh application dated 09.08.2012 before respondent No.3 ­ Sr. Superintendent of Police, Hisar. Another enquiry was conducted. This enquiry found no new fact coming into light and by a separate report, the SHO, Police Station, Barwala recommended that no prima facie cognizable offence is made out. Resultantly, the allegations of the petitioner were found false and frivolous.

(3.) STILL aggrieved, the petitioner has filed the present petition claiming that action should be initiated against the private respondent Nos.7 to 16 and to protect the petitioner from the ultimate action excommunicating him from society. He has sought a direction to respondent Nos.1 to 6 to recover labour of one year spent for raising crops for the 7th respondent. Directions are sought against the official respondents for deriliction of duty in closing the complaint and to punish them in accordance with law. Further prayer has been made against the official respondents to grant compensation to the petitioner on failure of the State to protect the life, liberty and livelihood of the petitioner as enshrined under the Constitution of India.