MAYA DEVI Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Smt. Maya Devi, widow of Sajjan Singh, has filed the present petition under Sections 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure read with Article 227 of the Constitution of India for issuance of necessary direction to respondent Nos. 1 to 3 for the registration of a criminal case under various Sections as mentioned in the head note of the petitione against respondents 4 to 9 and the petitioner has further prayed that the matter may be investigated and the accused may be punished according to law. The case of Smt. Maya Devi is borne out from the application, Annexure P-1, which was moved by Sh. Tarsem Singh and his mother Smt. Maya Devi and this application was addressed to the police authorities of Fatehgarh Panjtoor, Teh, Zira, District Ferozepur. A perusal of the allegations as contained in the complaint would show that as per the grouse of the petitioner on 8-9-1996, respondent Nos. 4 to 9 armed with deadly weapon came in a tractor trolley and demolished the house of the petitioner and her son as a result of which the costly luggage of the petitioner was also thrown out. The petitioner has further alleged that she has been deprived of certain money besides gold ornaments. These allegations of the petitioner were inquired into by the Police without registration of the case which perhaps was not permissible as allegations of the complaint prima facie disclosed the cognizable offence and in these circumstances the Police was duty bound to first register the case under Sections 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure in view of the dictum laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, 1992 Suppl (1) SCC 335 : (1992 Cri LJ 527). The State did not perform its statutory duty and as a result the petitioner has to approach this Court under the above provisions.

(2.) Notice was served upon the respondents. State admits that the complaint was filed by Smt. Maya Devi petitioner but the land, subject matter of dispute, was in fact owned by village Panchayat and there was no built structure on the land and the same is vacant. The petitioner has stored wheat straw (Turi) unauthorisedly which is still lying there. There was no electric meter installed at the said place as per the report of S.D.O. P.S.E.B. Fatehgarh Panjtoor. There were two electric meters in the name of the etitioner, one domestic electric connection was installed in the house of the petitioner near Punjab National Bank, Fatehgarh Panjtoor, which is at a considerable distance from the disputed land. The second connection was a commercial electric connection installed near water works which is also situated at a distant place from the disputed land. Ultimately, the police came to the conclusion that the stand of the petitioner and her son is falsified and not tenable and that the private respondents on behalf of the Panchayat were not allowing the petitioner to take forcible possession of the Panchayat land and for this reason the petitioner is bent to put pressure upon them by lodging the criminal proceedings.

(3.) The stand of the private respondents is similar to the one taken by the State. In support of her petition, Smt. Maya Devi has placed on record some of the photographs in order to show prima facie that the incident had taken place as mentioned by her in her petition as well as in the complaint which was investigated by the Police.