Petitioner sought quashing of police action under Section 482 Cr.P.C. alleging misuse of powers in property dispute. Court dismissed claims based on reply denying harassment and noted parties had opportunity for settlement.
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 PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
CRM M-No.22942 of 2012 Date of decision:23.09.2013
Bhupinder Singh
....Petitioner
Versus
State of Punjab and others
....Respondents
CORAM:- HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE RITU BAHRI
Present:- Mr. Manpreet Singh, Advocate for Mr. P.S.Khurana, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr. Daljeet Singh Virk, AAG, Punjab.
Mr. Deepak Verma, Advocate for respondents No.6 to 8.
RITU BAHRI, J (ORAL)
This petition has been filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. praying for issuance of an appropriate order or direction to respondents No.1 to 3 not to misuse their police powers at the instance of the private respondents No.6 to 8 to settle the property disputes pending between the parties and not to harass and humiliate the petitioner, his relatives and the witnesses concerning the property disputes with malafide intentions for extraneous considerations.
As per reply filed on 25th July, 2013, respondent No.8Jaswinder Kaur had submitted an application on 17.7.2012 to SHO PS Mahilpur, District Hoshiarpur against Piara Singh and Harminder Singh sons of Chain Singh, Bhupinder Singh and Tota sons of Piara Singh, to join the enquiry of the above mentioned case on
Kadian Savita 2013.09.26 13:54 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court Chandigarh
CRM M-No.22942 of 2012
-2-
19.07.2012. Both the parties were present and sought time for 24.7.2012 for solving the matter before the village Panchayat. In the meanwhile, the application was made by the petitioner and one more opportunity was granted to resolve the dispute before the Gram Panchayat of the village. Petitioner did not come present. They were never harassed and humiliated by the respondents. The averment regarding the harassment to the petitioner by the official respondents in connivance with private respondents has been denied.
Neither the petitioner and his relatives are being called in the police station and nor they have been threatened for being implicated in some false case. The petitioner party was never called by the local police on 18.7.2012 and 26.7.2012 as alleged in their petition. Reply filed on behalf of respondent No.5 is to the same effect so filed by respondents No.1 and 2.
In view of the above, no further order is required to be passed in the present petition.
Disposed of as such.
September 23, 2013 savita
(RITU BAHRI) JUDGE
Kadian Savita 2013.09.26 13:54 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court Chandigarh
1 issue framed by the court
Whether further order is required given the denial of harassment averments and the parties' opportunity to resolve the dispute.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Bhupinder Singh
State of Punjab
Ritu Bahri
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
