LUCKHY ALI Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petition has been filed for directing the respondents No. 1 to 4 to provide protection of life and liberty to the petitioner and his family members from respondent No. 5, who is a Head Constable in the Punjab Police at Sangrur and he be restrained from threatening the life of the petitioner. A further direction is prayed to be issued to hold an independent inquiry in respect of the allegations made in the petition and the complaints made to several police and other authorities (Annexures P -3 and P -4), which are representations to Deputy Chief Minister, Punjab and their copies are stated to have been sent to police authorities. A further prayer has been made to take necessary legal action against respondent No. 5, who is illegally using his powers against the petitioner. One such inquiry has already been made but no action has been taken.

(2.) THE petitioner resides in a Dargah which was gifted to his father by one Gian Kaur. The Dargah is registered in the name of the petitioner. Respondent No. 5 it is alleged wants to dispossess the petitioner. It may be noticed that the father of the petitioner filed a civil suit for permanent injunction against five persons including Avtar Singh, respondent No. 5 herein. The suit of the petitioner was decreed in his favour vide judgment and decree dated 24.04.1999 (Annexure P -1) passed by the learned Additional Civil Judge (Sr. Divn.), Sangrur. The petitioner had become owner in possession of the disputed property and defendants it was held had no right to dispossess him from the land. The defendants have been restrained from interfering in the peaceful possession of the plaintiff. Therefore, in case there is breach of the decree or respondent No. 5, who was a defendant in the said civil suit seeks to interfere in the possession of the plaintiff, the petitioner has a remedy in terms of Order 21 Rule 32 of the Code of Civil Procedure. This Court in exercise of its inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr. P.C. -for short) is not to execute the decree of a Civil Court.

(3.) IN respect of the said incidents, the petitioner may seek remedy by filing necessary complaints with the police or file complaints before the concerned Illaqa Magistrate. There is no material in the present petition to substantiate the allegations that have made. The petitioner has a remedy of lodging a FIR in case a cognizable offence is made out. In case the FIR is not registered the petitioner has a remedy of filing an application under Section 156(3) Cr. P.C. before the Illaqa Magistrate in the light of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sakiri Vasu Vs. State of U.P. And others, : 2008(1) (Criminal), 392 (SC) wherein it has been inter alia held that the Magistrate can order police to register FIR in exercise of power under Section 156(3) Cr. P.C.