Manmohan Singh v. State Of Haryana And Others

-1IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision:- 29.01.2020 Manmohan Singh

...Petitioner

Versus

State of Haryana and others ... Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJ MOHAN SINGH Present:- Sh. Kuldeep Khandelwal, Advocate, for the petitioner.

**** RAJ MOHAN SINGH, J .(Oral) Petitioner seeks issuance of necessary directions to respondents No.2 and 3 to lodge a FIR against the accused persons mentioned in the complaint dated 24.09.2019. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in respect of commission of cognizable offence, initially a telephonic call from mobile No.98121-16020 was given to Kuldeep Munshi of the Police Station, Rania on his mobile No.88140-11641. Thereafter, a complaint was given to Police Station, Rania but the same was not received by the police. However, at about 6:30 pm, the officials of Police Station, Rania came to the house of the petitioner and took his statement but still no action has been

-2taken.

Owing to the aforesaid inaction on the part of the Incharge, Police Station, Rania, a representation dated 24.09.2019 was moved before the Superintendent of Police, Sirsa. By way of present petition, petitioners seeks issuance of necessary directions to respondents No.2 and 3 to register a FIR in the context of the occurrence.

On the other hand, FIR No.348 dated 29.08.2019 under Sections 323, 324, 326 and 506 of IPC has been registered against the petitioner.

Notice of motion.

On the asking of Court, Mr. Surender Singh, AAG, Haryana accepts notice on behalf of State of Haryana. In view of nature of order, which this Court proposes to pass, there is no necessity of filing any response from the respondents.

At this stage, without meaning anything on the merits of the case, respondent No.3 is directed to look into the grievance of the petitioner. In case, any cognizable offence is found to have been committed, in such eventuality, S.H.O. Police Station, Rania can be asked to act in accordance with law. If no such cognizable offence is found to have been committed, then the petitioner would be informed as per the parameters laid down in Lalita Kumari vs. Govt. of U.P. (2014) 2 SCC (1).

-3Respondent No.3 would be at liberty to assess the situation even by associating the concerned persons in the process of enquiry/investigation and thereafter, shall take independent view without being influenced any observation may hereinabove in accordance with law.

Disposed of.

29.01.2020 ( Raj Mohan Singh ) geeta Judge Whether speaking /reasoned Yes / No Whether Reportable Yes / No