Punjab-Haryana High Court
Vipin Kumar vs State Of Punjab And Others on 25 February, 2014
Author: Surinder Gupta
Bench: Surinder Gupta
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
Crl. Misc. No. M-23551 of 2013 (O&M)
Date of decision : February 25, 2014
Vipin Kumar
... Petitioner
vs.
State of Punjab and others
... Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURINDER GUPTA
Present: Mr. Nand Lal Sammi, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr. Varun Sharma, AAG, Punjab.
Mr. Sachin Jain, Advocate for the respondent No.2.
Mr. Sanjiv Gupta, Advocate for respondent No.3.
Surinder Guupta, J CRM-5095-2014 This is an application for placing on record written statement on behalf of respondent No.3.
Written statement on behalf of respondent No.3 is taken on record. Criminal miscellaneous application is allowed.
CRM-M-23551 of 2013 This petition has been filed by the petitioner seeking direction to respondents No.1, 4 and 5 for registration of the case against respondent No.2 for causing injuries to respondent No.3 who is posted as Bailiff in District Courts at Patiala. Further relief has been sought for registration of the FIR against respondent No.3 Vijay Kumar Bailiff for resiling from his statement made before Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Samana, during enquiry being conducted by the police.
The case of the petitioner, in brief, is that in the execution application No.92 dated 1.12.2012, ejectment order of respondent No.2 was passed and respondent No.3 went to the spot for delivery of possession in pursuance to the warrant of possession issued by the court. He made the report dated 7.12.2012 regarding forcible obstruction in delivery of possession and giving of pushes and blows to him resulting in tearing of button of his uniform.
The petitioner moved application against respondent No.2 before the Additional Civil Judge (Sr. Division), Samana on 15.12.2012 which was forwarded to respondent No.5- Station House Officer, Police Station Samana, for appropriate action. During enquiry, the Bailiff stated that no beating was given to Kumar Deepak 2014.03.03 12:45 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Crl. Misc. No. M-23551 of 2013 (O&M) -2- him and the police submitted status report to Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Samana and the same was disposed of with advise to file appropriate complaint. The revision petition against the order of Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Samana was also dismissed. The courts below have failed to take strict action in this case on the report of the Bailiff.
I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. It has been submitted during the arguments that regarding report of the Bailiff and his resiling from that report during police enquiry departmental action has been initiated against him. It has also been submitted that the dispute is in between the landlord and the tenant. The respondent No.2 has been allowed time to vacate the shop by the court and this petition is just a pressure tactic of the petitioner.
The petitioner has not come up with any appeal or revision against the order passed by the court where the execution is pending. The courts are ceased of the matter and the proceedings being conducted in the execution. If the petitioner has any grouse, he can avail his remedy of filing complaint regarding proceedings that has taken place during the execution proceedings. The concerned court can also take appropriate action if so required. The petitioner has already availed the remedy of filing petition before the Executing Court and then the revision against the order of that court. The relief as sought for in this complaint for registration of the case on the statement of respondent No.3, against respondent No.2 and then another case against respondent No.3 for resiling from his statement cannot be allowed. If the respondent No.3-Bailiff has conducted any misconduct, the learned District & Sessions Judge, is competent to take departmental action against him.
This petition appears to have been filed by the petitioner out of his curiosity to put pressure on the respondents.
There are no merits in this petition.
Dismissed.
February 25, 2014 (Surinder Gupta)
deepak Judge
Kumar Deepak
2014.03.03 12:45
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document