SUNIL KUMAR YADAV Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY this order, Criminal Writ Petitions 1129 and 1136 of 1995 are being decided as they pertain to same set of facts.

(2.) IN writ petition No. 1129 of 1995 the petitioner Sunil Kumar Yadav has alleged that his brother Anil Kumar Yadav was inducted as tenant in a shop situated in Mohindra Colony at the monthly rent of Rs. 400/- by respondent No. 5 - Pargat Singh. The petitioner and his brother were running the business of repair work of tape-recorders, television sets, and watches etc. therein. In February, 1995 respondent No. 5 Pargat Singh threatened the petitioner to dispossess him forcibly from the suit shop, whereupon Anil Kumar Yadav filed a Civil Suit against respondent No. 5 with a prayer to restrain him from dispossessing Anil Kumar Yadav from the suit shop forcibly and illegally. Respondent No. 5 filed written statement admitting the relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties denying that he ever threatened the plaintiff to dispossess him illegally and forcibly from the tenanted premises. In the written statement Pargat Singh also averred that he has filed a petition before the Rent Controller for ejectment of plaintiff-tenant and hence, vide order dated 15.9.1995, the Sub Judge II Class, Ludhiana in Anil Kumar's suit held that the question of dispossessing the tenant forcibly does not arise and the suit was, accordingly, dismissed. Despite this order, Annexure P-1, respondents 5 to 13 conspired to dispossess the petitioner and his brother from the demised premises. In pursuance of that conspiracy, on 21.9.1995 respondents 5 to 13 attacked the petitioner and his father Prehlad Kumar Yadav with the help of respondent No. 3 and his subordinates. On 21.9.1995 about 1.30 p.m. respondents 5 to 13 tried to take possession of the disputed shop forcibly and in that attempt inflicted serious injuries to the petitioner as well as to his father. Petitioner and his father were medically examined in the Civil Hospital, Ludhiana on 21.9.1995 and on 22.9.1995 the hospital authorities immediately sent information to respondent No. 4 for registration of the case, but no action was taken by the police.

(3.) IT is also alleged that when the Police Station Focal Point Ludhiana refused to register a case on the complaint of the petitioner, then he sent a detailed complaint about the incident to the Station House Officer, Focal Point Ludhiana, the Senior Superintendent of Police, Ludhiana, the Deputy Inspector General, Ludhiana and the Chief Justice of this High Court on 12.10.1995, but still no action was taken by the police, copy of the complaint is at Annexure P-3. Hence, the petitioner has prayed for issuance of an appropriate writ, order or direction to respondents 2 to 4 to register a case against respondents 5 to 13 under Sections 452/504/506/324/325/148/149/337/382 read with Section 120-B of the Indian Penal Code.