GAMA RAM Vs. STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner has approached this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the following amongst other reliefs:

(2.) THE allegation of the petitioner is that he is working as a scrap dealer and had initially set up his business at Kandaghat. According to him, in May/June, 2006, some police officials from the Police Station, Kandaghat, District Solan came to his shop, arrested him and his son in relation to some wire theft case. The petitioner has further alleged that the police forced him to close his shop and threatened him that they will rope him in false cases. According to the petitioner he consequently closed his shop and shifted to Naina Tikker. According to him, there also he was harassed by the police authorities and finally he had to leave his business at Naina Tikker and he again shifted his business to Salogra near Kandaghat.

(3.) PERUSAL of the reply reveals a shocking state of affairs and clearly shows that the petitioner has tried to mislead and hoodwink this Court. In the reply it has been mentioned that ten FIRs have been registered against the petitioner and most of them relate to theft or receiving stolen property. No doubt in three of the criminal cases the petitioner has been acquitted but the fact remains that seven cases are still pending against the petitioner. The petitioner in the writ petition should have at least mentioned that so many criminal cases are pending against him. He deliberately chose to withhold this vital information from this Court.