A writ petition filed for suspension of an SHO, registration of an FIR, and imposition of costs. The High Court noted the petitioner failed to substantiate allegations of forcible dispossession and threat to life per an inquiry report, thus refusing the requested reliefs.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
CWP No.370 of 2023
Decided on: 11th June, 2024
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Naresh Kumar …..Petitioner
Versus
State of H.P. and others
.....Respondents
Coram
Ms. Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua
Whether approved for reporting?1
For the Petitioner: In person.
For the Respondents: Mr. Varun Chandel and Mr. L.N. Sharma, Additional Advocates General, for respondents No.1 to 3.
None for respondents No.4 to 14.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge
This writ petition has been filed for the grant of
following substantive reliefs:-
1 Whether reporters of print and electronic media may be allowed to see the order? Yes.
2
Kindly pass Order to the Director General of Police, Police Headquarter Shimla, Himachal Pradesh (Respondent No.1 herein) that “Immediately suspend Mr. Yograj Chandel (No.3 herein), SHO, Police Station Nadaun, District Hamirpur, Himachal Pradesh, from his own service with immediate effect”.
2. I have heard the petitioner, who is present in person, as also the learned Additional Advocate General for the respondents-State.
Pursuant to the directions dated 21.03.2024, court notice is stated to have been served upon respondent No.14, however, there is no appearance on his behalf.
3. The petitioner alleges non-compliance of the directions issued on 10.05.2022 in CWP No.2868 of 2022 (Naresh Kumar Versus State of Himachal Pradesh and
3
others). The afore-numbered writ petition was instituted by the petitioner with the pleadings that:-
3(i). Petitioner had earlier approached this Court by instituting CWP No.7850 of 2021 with the grievance that his sister and brother-in-law had illegally got entire revenue land recorded in their names; The revenue entries in the relevant revenue record were required to be corrected.
3(ii). A sum of Rs.90,000/- was paid by petitioner’s father for purchase of the land, out of which, petitioner had contributed Rs.50,000/- by borrowing the same from Kangra Central Bank. The petitioner had repaid the loan installments for number of years; Petitioner also took a loan amounting to Rs.1.00 Lakh for raising construction of a residential house on the said land.
3(iii). CWP No.7850 of 2021 was disposed of on 14.12.2021 with liberty to the petitioner to approach the Tehsildar, Tehsil Nadaun, District Hamirpur for seeking remedy under Section 37 read with Section 123 of the Himachal Pradesh Land Revenue Act, 1954 with further direction to the Tehsildar to make an endeavour to dispose of the matter in accordance with law within a period of six months.
4
3(iv). After the disposal of CWP No.7850 of 2021, the petitioner instituted CWP No.2868 of 2022, alleging that:-
a. Petitioner had taken a rented accommodation and paid advance rent from 01.11.2021 to 31.12.2022 to his landlord Sh. Gurmeet Singh.
b. Petitioner’s landlord Sh. Gurmeet Singh hired certain goons to forcibly dispossess the petitioner from rented accommodation.
c. Petitioner approached the Reader to the Station House Officer (SHO), Police Station Nadaun, District Hamirpur, complaining against the high handedness of his landlord Sh. Gurmeet Singh. Instead of helping the petitioner, the SHO threatened to lodge him in jail.
d. The petitioner has been receiving threats to his life on his cell phone. The petitioner had complained against the aforesaid actions to the SHO, Police Station Nadaun and had also submitted a complaint to the Director General of Police, Himachal Pradesh, but in vain.
e. Petitioner apprehends serious threat to his life and therefore, he should be provided with adequate protection.
4. With regard to petitioner’s plea of his alleged forcible dispossession from the rented accommodation at
5
the instance of his landlord, Hon’ble Division Bench while deciding CWP No.2868 of 2022 on 10.05.2022, held that the petitioner has to avail his remedy before the concerned Civil Court. Relevant observations made in this regard read as under:-
As regard to the threat perceived by the petitioner to his life, Hon’ble Court held that the petitioner can approach the SHO, Police Station Nadaun and also the Superintendent of Police, Hamirpur, who would then examine the apprehension of the petitioner and on that basis, take decision to provide adequate level of security.
5. The petitioner submits that subsequent to the aforesaid decision dated 10.05.2022 rendered in CWP No.2868 of 2022, he had moved a representation to the concerned police authorities, however, no action on his representation was taken and that he is still facing threat to his life from the private respondents. Hence, the petition.
6
6. The official respondents have filed their reply. Their stand is that:-
6(i). In compliance to the order dated 10.05.2022 passed in CWP No.2868 of 2022, an inquiry was ordered to examine the apprehension of threat to life of the petitioner. The said inquiry was entrusted to the Deputy Superintendent of Police (Headquarters), District Hamirpur. The inquiry officer submitted his inquiry report after probing all the concerned persons associated with both the parties by recording their statements. In the inquiry report, the inquiry officer held that threat perception to the life of the petitioner was not substantiated.
6(ii). The inquiry report though disclosed that in December, 2021, the petitioner had approached the old aged mother of Sh. Gurmeet Singh S/o late Sh. Sant Ram, resident of Village Tillu, Post Office Bela, Tehsil Nadaun, District Hamirpur to acquire one room accommodation in her home on the request of residing there temporarily. The mother of Sh. Gurmeet Singh (respondent No.4) offered a single room accommodation to the petitioner. The petitioner put some of his luggage in the room and started residing there on intermittent basis. Petitioner’s claim that he had paid some advance amount, could not be corroborated in
7
the inquiry as the owner of the house had also refuted his claim and the petitioner himself could not provide any documents/ receipts or witnesses to prove that he had paid
any advance amount to the house owner (family of Sh. Gurmeet Singh).
6(iii). It also came out during inquiry that Sh. Gurmeet Singh asked the petitioner in April, 2022 to vacate the room. The petitioner took it otherwise and started complaining to the authorities. The inquiry report was to the effect that the petitioner could not substantiate any of his allegations as also the alleged threat perception to his life.
7. In view of the above, the reliefs prayed for by the petitioner cannot be granted to him in this petition. The writ petition is closed, however, the petitioner is at liberty to avail appropriate remedy for the redressal of his surviving grievances, if any, in accordance with law. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, also stand disposed of.
Jyotsna Rewal Dua Judge
June 11, 2024 Mukesh
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the reliefs prayed for in the writ petition should be granted given the findings of the inquiry.
Whether the threat perception to the life of the petitioner was substantiated.
Naresh Kumar
State of H.P.
Yograj Chandel
Sh. Gurmeet Singh
Jyotsna Rewal Dua
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
