Delhi High Court
Bhagat Singh vs The Commissioner Of Police & Ors. on 8 July, 2010
Author: Hima Kohli
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ W.P.(CRL) 934/2010
Decided on 08.07.2010
IN THE MATTER OF :
BHAGAT SINGH ..... Petitioner
Through : Mr. M.K. Pradhan, Adv.
versus
THE COMMISSIONER OF POLICE & ORS. ..... Respondents
Through : Mr. Akshay Bipin, ASC for R-1 & 2
with ASI Arvind Kumar,
PS Bharat Nagar.
Mr. R.S. Dakha with
Mr. C. Rajaram, Advs. for R-3 to 7
CORAM
* HON'BLE MS.JUSTICE HIMA KOHLI
1. Whether Reporters of Local papers may No
be allowed to see the Judgment?
2. To be referred to the Reporter or not? No
3. Whether the judgment should be No
reported in the Digest?
HIMA KOHLI, J. (Oral)
1. The respondents No.3 to 7 are served and are duly represented
through counsel.
2. The present petition is filed by the petitioner praying inter alia
for protection from the purported illegal harassment and torture on the part
of the respondents No.3 to 7 and to restrain the said respondents from
entering the Gurudwara constructed in front of House No.E-245, Wazir Pur,
J.J. Colony, Delhi. It is the case of the petitioner that in the year 1965, his
parents constructed a Gurudwara in front of their house at the aforesaid
address and started sewa and became caretakers thereof. After their
demise, the petitioner, who is handicapped, became the caretaker of the
Gurudwara and survives on the donations made by the devotees, who visit
the Gurudwara. It is averred in the petition that the respondents No.3 & 4
have threatened to kill the petitioner in case he does not leave the
Gurudwara. The cause of action for filing the present petition is stated to
have arisen on 17.5.2010, when the respondents No.3 to 7 purportedly
entered the Gurudwara by breaking open its lock, gave beatings to the
petitioner and his wife and took away various articles lying in the
Gurudwara, as mentioned in para 3(G) of the petition. It is stated that on
the very next date, i.e., on 18.5.2010, the petitioner made over a complaint
to the respondent No.2 against the respondents No.3 to 7, but as no action
was taken by the respondents No.1 & 2, he was compelled to file the present
petition.
3. Vide order dated 9.6.2010, a Status Report was called for, from
the respondents No.1 & 2. The same has been handed over in the Court,
with an advance copy to the other side, and taken on the record. It is stated
in the Status Report that the Gurudwara in question is built on Government
land and is being maintained by a Society called Gurudwara Shri Guru Singh
Sabha, JJ Colony Wazir Pur Delhi. Delhi. It is further stated that the
petitioner is not residing at the address given in the petition, i.e., House
No.E-245, Wazir Pur, J.J. Colony, Delhi, though the said property belongs to
his parents and that in fact he is residing somewhere else.
4. Insofar as the incident dated 17.5.2010 is concerned, it is
submitted that on receiving a complaint from the petitioner with regard to
the aforesaid incident on 18.5.2010, PS Bharat Nagar undertook inquiries
and it has transpired from the inquiries that some altercation had taken
place between the petitioner and the respondents No.3 to 7 as the petitioner
wanted some money from them out of the offerings/donations received in
the Gurudwara, but the contentions of the petitioner that the respondents
No.3 to 7 looted his articles and some cash, were found to be false and
baseless.
5. Insofar as the claim of the petitioner for protection against the
respondents No.3 to 7 is concerned, it is stated that since the petitioner is
not residing at the address given by him in the writ petition, there was no
occasion to grant him protection and in case the petitioner wishes to reside
at the given address, protection shall be granted to him.
6. In view of the aforesaid Status Report, it is deemed appropriate
to dispose of the present petition as the main grievance of the petitioner
that the respondent No.2 is not acting on the complaint made by him,
stands satisfied. The inquiries made by the respondent No.2 make it clear
that the petitioner is neither residing at the address given by him in the
present petition, nor is the Gurudwara in question, his private property, but
built on Government land. Hence, the second relief prayed for by the
petitioner that the respondents No.3 to 7 be restrained from entering the
Gurudwara, is in any case not maintainable.
7. Insofar as the first relief is concerned, in case the petitioner
furnishes his correct residential address to the respondent No.2, they shall
take necessary steps to protect him in the event such an occasion arises, in
accordance with law.
8. The petition is disposed of. File be consigned to the record room.
(HIMA KOHLI)
JULY 08, 2010 JUDGE
sk
