(1.) THE petitioner seeks issuance of a direction to respondent Nos. 1 to 3 to register FIR against respondent Nos. 4 to 12 under Sections 454/395/342/386/505/34/149 IPC. The occurrence is alleged to have taken place on 6.7.1995 when the petitioner was out of his house and had gone to Noor Pur Bedi to supervise the construction work going on there. The respondent Nos. 4 to 9 and 11 came to the house of the petitioner at about 10 -00 a.m., forcibly broke open the lock and entered the house with intent to commit a dacoity. Bal Ram son of Jangi, a cousin of the petitioner learnt about this incident and rushed to the place of occurrence and made efforts to restrain the respondents from indulging in the said illegal activities. The respondents aforesaid, however, threatened Bal Ram with dire consequences. They took away some household articles/goods, including some important documents as also a cash amount of Rs. 72,000/ - by putting the same in gunny bags. The robbed property was taken to the house of respondent Nos. 8 and 9 namely Jagdish Kumar and Sanjay Mintu. Earlier, the petitioners had filed two civil suits, i.e. Civil Suit No. 295 of 1995 against respondent No. 4, Smt. Maya Wanti and prayed for issuance of ad -interim injunction regarding which notice was issued, fixing 6.6.1995, on which date the suit was ordered to be proceeded ex parte against the defendant and the stay order was continued till disposal of the suit. The other civil suit (No. 332 of 1995) was filed against respondents No. 5 to 7, i.e. Rakesh Kumar, Bitta and Surinder Kumar, in which ad -interim injunction was granted and on the next date, i.e. 15 -6 -1995 the said suit was also ordered to be proceeded ex parte against the defendants, named above. The petitioner lodged criminal complaints regarding the said incident on 13.7.1995 and 17.7.1995 (copies Annexures P2 and P3), but no action was taken thereon. It has been alleged that the local police from the very beginning was partisan and biased against the petitioner and in favour of the accused persons. It is further alleged that on 13.5.1995 when the petitioner visited Bassi Pathana, a constable in civil dress tried to arrest him and the same incident was repeated on 17.7.1995. On 11.8.1995, Bal Ram, cousin brother of the petitioner was picked up by respondent No. 12, H.C. Piara Singh alongwith respondent Nos. 8 to 10, namely Smt Bala Devi, Jagdish Kumar and Sanjay Mintu and was taken to the house of the said respondent (Nos. 8 to 10), where he was threatened in order to pressurize him to withdraw the complaint dated 9.7.1995. On refusal of the petitioner to withdraw the complaint, he was given beatings. At the knife point, respondent No. 9 obtained the signatures of the petitioner on a blank paper. Feeling aggrieved against the inaction on the part of the local police, the petitioner has approached this Court by means of this petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C.
(2.) NOTICE of motion was issued to the respondents. Respondent No. 3/Atma Singh, SI/SHO filed reply by way of affidavit. Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 filed their reply by way of affidavit of Shri Harbhajan Singh, DSP(H), Fathegarh Saheb. Respondent Nos. 4 to 11 filed separate reply.
(3.) IN their reply, the private respondent (Nos. 4 to 11) denied the averments made by the petitioner in the petition and contended that Smt Maya Wanti/respondent No. 4 is an old lady, aged about 70 years and is a widow. Respondent Nos. 5 to 6, named Rakesh Kumar and Bitta were real brothers and nephews of Smt. Maya Wati, but were residing separately. Respondent No. 9 Jagdish Kumar is the brother of Inderjit, late husband of Smt Maya Wati while respondent No. 8 Smt Bimla Devi is the wife of respondent No. 9 -Jagdish and respondent No. 10 is son of Jagdish. Respondent No. 11 Smt. Urmila Devi is the wife of Rakesh Kumar, respondent No. 5 Surinder is the Municipal Commissioner of the ward of the respondents. It is alleged that the petitioner was trying to rope in all the family members of respondents. On merit, it was contended that the petitioner was, in fact, a tenant of a room built in the house of Smt Maya Wanti and the latter was residing on the ground floor all alone. On 25.6.94 the petitioner, Budh Ram, agreed to vacate the house within six months and it was agreed that Smt Maya Wanti would pay him Rs. 15,000/ -, for vacating the same. It was further agreed that Budh Ram would return the goods belonging to Maya Wanti, which he had stealthily taken away. A copy of the agreement was annexed as Annexure R1 with the reply. It was further mentioned that Maya Wanti paid a sum of Rs. 15,000/ - to Budh Ram, and Shri Surinder Kumar, Municipal Commissioner acted as a go in between them. Budh Ram had vacated the house on 10 -5 -1995 but later on with the ulterior motive to take forcible possession of the said house, he filed a civil suit on 7.6.95 and managed to get a report on the summons about the refusal of the defendants to accept service and got a stay order from the civil Court. Maya Wanti put in appearance in the civil suit and the same was pending for recording evidence for 12.9.1997. The petitioner again filed a suit against respondent No. 6 and other respondents and wanted to misuse the process of law for getting the case registered. In nutshell, the case of the private respondents is one of denial of the averments made in the petition.