SATRAM SINGH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) SATNAM Singh son of Tulsi Ram, has filed the present petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. praying for the registration of a Criminal case against the persons mentioned in para No. 2 of the petition and also in Annexure P-4. The allegations of the petitioner are that on 3.10.1996, Rajinder Singh, Jagdish Lal and Sheela, all residents of Dalichi Mohalla, Ward No. 5, Sirhind along with some other Gundas demolished his house and took all the household articles including the electric meter installed in the said building. The matter was allegedly reported to the police of Police Station Fatehgarh Sahib. The SHO instead of registering a case, proceeded under Section 107/151 Cr.P.C. so much so, the petitioner was also arrested. Thereafter the matter was allegedly reported to DIG, Patiala Range, Patiala giving the details of the crime committed, but inspite of representation and complaint Annexure P-4 no action was taken against the offenders as the Police was helping them. Seeing no other alternative, the present petition.

(2.) NOTICE of the petition was given to the respondents who filed reply and denied the allegations. According to the respondents, the petitioner encroached on the municipal land owned by Municipal Committee, Sarhind and he has a dispute with the employees of the Municipal Committee and for that reason the petitioner falsely named those persons as accused in para No. 2 of the petition. It has been categorically stated in the reply that no criminal case has been registered against the alleged offenders. However, there was some quarrel between the petitioner and his cousin Jagdish Lal and for that reason petitioner and Jagdish Lal were put in 107/151 Cr.P.C.

(3.) MY attention has been invited to the photographs Annexures P-1 to P-3 which prima facie tell the story that the house was ransacked. Even the reply filed by the respondents indicates one thing that there was some dispute between the petitioner and one Jagdish Lal and police went into action to a limited extent by invoking the provisions under section 107/151 Cr.P.C. There is no indication in the written reply that under what circumstances the house of the petitioner was allegedly demolished.