ABIMANYU VINAYAK Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is petition filed by petitioners, Abimanyu Vinayak and others, seeking direction to respondents no. 1 to 4 to take action against respondents no. 5 to 7 and to protect their life and liberty.

(2.) Petitioner no. 1-Abimanyu Vinayak is an advocate by profession while petitioner no. 2 is his wife and petitioners no. 3 and 4 are his parents. It has been alleged that respondent no. 5-Gauri Shankar @ Kaku is a recovery and repossession agent working for a private bank and financiers. Mother of petitioner no. 1 owns a plot at Shiva Ji Park, Yamunanagar. Respondent no. 5 at the behest of his brother, who wanted to grab her said plot, started harassing and threatening petitioners. A civil suit was filed wherein respondent no. 5 and his companions were restrained from interfering in the possession of petitioner no. 3 over the plot in question. The local police is helping respondent no. 5 and his companions in their illegal activities.

(3.) Petitioner no. 2-Rachna Vinayak, wife of petitioner no. 1, was in job in Delhi Public School, Yamunanagar as a teacher. She received threatening calls on her mobile phone and the matter was reported to the police but no action was taken as a result of which she had to leave her job. On 10.06.2013, brother of respondent no. 5 abused and threatened petitioners no. 1 and 2, who had gone to Easy Day Super Market, Gobindpuri Road, Yamunanagar. He also stopped their car outside IDBI Bank and the matter was reported to the police but no action was taken against brother of respondent no. 5. Again on 18.08.2013, respondent no. 5 tried to hit car of petitioner no. 1 and blocked his way. Similar incident happened on 26.08.2013. Repeated representations were made to police. Later on FIR under Section 66A of the Information Technology Act was registered against petitioner no.1 on the allegation that HDFC Bank had cancelled agency of respondent no. 5 and his brother on his complaint. Thereafter, repeated threats were given to petitioners and they had to file petition (CRM-M- 24449-2014) in this Court seeking protection to their life and liberty, which was disposed of on 22.07.2014 giving liberty to petitioners to move complaint to Superintendent of Police, Yamunanagar as and when they apprehend danger to their life and liberty. Even thereafter several incidents of giving threats to them by respondent no. 5 took place but the police did not take any action, hence this petition.