HC issues Notices to Home Secy, DGP, IGP, SPs, SHOs and others.
JAMMU: The High Court of Jammu and Kashmir Bench comprising of Justice Mansoor Ahmed Mir in a much publicized case today issued notices to the State through Principal Secretary to Government, Home Department , Director General of Police, J&K, Jammu.
Mr Dilbagh Singh, Inspector General of Police, Jammu, Mr .J. P. Sharma Sub-Inspector then SHO Police Station Gangyal, Jammu, Mr Bishnesh Kumar SHO Police Station
Gandhi Nagar, Jammu.Mr Abdul Jabbar, IPS, Asst SP C/O Zonal PHQ Jammu, Mr Mohan Lal Kaith Dy.S.P. SDPO City South Gandhi Nagar, Jammu, Mr Rajeshwar Singh S.P. City South, Mr Vikramjeet Singh S/O Late Dev Raj Singh, Mr Gurvinder Singh S/O Dalip Singh R/O Bhour Camp, Gadigarh, Jammu, Prabha Gupta wife of Shri Vijesh Gupta
R/O 84 Pir Mitha, Jammu, Vijesh Gupta S/O Barkat Ram R/O 84 Pir Mitha, Jammu., Satish Chander S/O Inder Jit R/O H.No.F-22 Rehari Jammu, Brij Mohan S/O Suraj Parkash R/O H.No.152 Raghunath Pura, Jammu., Yudhveer Sethi S/O Subash Chander Sethi, R/O Lala Buta Ram Market, Jammu., Kuldeep Raj S/O S. Suraj Parkash R/O H.No.152, Raghunath Pura, Jammu, Subash Chander sethi S/O Buta Ram Sethi
R/O F-224, Mohalla Paharian, Jammu, Tarseem Singh Salaria S/O Raja Ram Singh
R/O House No.167-B, Sector 6, Street No.14, Nanak Nagar, Jammu, Ms.Madhu Aggarwal wife of Shri Rakesh Aggarwal and Ms.Veena Aggarwal wife of Madan Lal Aggarwal in a writ petition filed by Mr Ravinder Gupta @ Gola Shah.
M/s A K Sawhney, Javed Iqbal, Vishal Sharma Advocates appeared for the petitioner in two connected petitions- one filed by Mr Ravinder Gupta and another filed by Mr Mohan Lal Kaith Dy SP.
The Notices issued in the Court were waived by respondent no. 1 and 2 for whom Mr Gagan Basotra Addl Advocate General appeared. Mr B S Slathia and Mr D S Chouhan appeared for respondent no. 3. Mr Anil Sethi appeared for respondent no. 7.
Court directed the Notice to rest of the respondents to be published in a leading daily newspaper having wide circulation in the area where the respondents reside at the expenses of the petitioner.
Court further directed the listing of the case immediatley after four weeks.
In the other petition file dby Dy SP Mohan Lal Kaith, the Court directed the other respondent Vikram Singh to file objections.
In the writ petition the petitioner has levelled serious allegations against the sennior police officers including Mr Dilbag Singh IGP Jammu.
The text of the petition is as follows:
” 2. That the proforma respondent No.19 vide Sale deeds dated 09.05.2001, 23.5.2001 and 12.10.2000 purchased 20 Kanals, 5 Kanals and 30 Kanals of land situated at Chawadhi covered under survey No.658. The total land in the aforesaid survey No. is reportedly 327 Kanals. Copies of sale deeds are annexed herewith this petition as Annexures-A, B & C.
3. That the proforma respondent No.19 out of her aforesaid land sold 5 plots of land of 18 marlas each to Sanjay Gandotra, Mrs. Shalni Gandotra, Mrs. Monika Guta, Smt. Shivani Gupta and Geetanjali in terms of sale deeds 27.2.2006, 10.3.2006 and 1.3.2006 who on execution of the Sale deeds were put in possession of the same and the above named persons even raised boundary walls around the said plots. Copies of the said sale deeds are also annexed herewith this petition as Annexures-D, E and F. It is significant to mention here that the petitioner herein is the attorney holder of proforma respondents in respect of the aforesaid land.
4. That respondent No.11 and 12 claim to have purchased 20 Kanals of land in survey No.658. The respondent No.11 claims to have purchased 16 Kanals vide sale deeds dated 10.5.1997 (four kanals), 7.5.1997 (four kanals) 1.10.1997 (four kanals), and 12.5.1997 (four kanals) whereas respondent No.12 also claims to have purchased four kanals of land vide sale deed dated 7.5.1997. Out of the said land purchased by respondent No.11, it appears that she had transferred 1 Kanal 14 marlas of land to respondent No.13, 1 Kanal 14 marlas to respondent No.14, four kanals to respondent No.15, 3 kanals and 8 marlas to respondent No.16 and four kanals to respondent No.17.
5. That as a result of aforesaid sale of the lands effected by proforma respondent No.19 and respondents 11 and 12, a controversy arose between the parties wherein each party claim its right of land purchased by it resulting into institution of suit by the proforma respondent No.19 in the court of 1st Addl. Munsiff (Forest), Jammu. The said court has passed an order of status quo with regard to the possession of the suit land on 6.9.2007. A copy of the said order is annexed herewith this petition as Annexure-G. The suit has been instituted by the proforma respondent No.19 against respondent No.11, Krishan Singh and one Kamal Singh. The proforma respondent No.19 has sought declaration to the effect that the sale deed dated 10.5.1997 executed by Krishan Singh in favour of respondent no.11 comprising 4 kanals of land in survey No.658/Min and the sale deed dated 12.5.1997 executed by Kamal Singh in favour of respondent No.11 comprising 4 Kanals of land situated in Khasra No.658 as also rectification deed dated 1/10/1997 be declared as null and void. It is stated that in the original sale deed the survey number mentioned in 699/min which survey number was subsequently changed under the rectification deed to survey No.658/min. It is further the case of proforma respondent no.19 that neither respondent No.11 nor Krishan Singh or Kanal Singh were in possession of land in survey No.658/Min and that is why no possession was delivered to respondent No.11 by them.
6. That the proforma respondent No.19 has also filed another suit which is pending in the court of 1st Addl. Munsiff (Forest) Jammu against respondent No.12 and Krishan Singh. In the said suit, proforma respondent No.19 has sought declaration to the effect that the rectification deed dated 1/10/1997 executed by Krishan Singh in favour of Vijesh Gupta be declared as null and void with consequential relief. It is submitted that respondent No.12 or Krishan Singh were not in possession of the land in survey No.658/Min, which number was subsequently rectified vide the deed of rectification. The order passed by the trial court dated 6/9/2007 in this suit is placed on record as Annexure-H.
7. That it is significant to mention here that proforma respondent No.20 has also filed a suit against respondent No.10 and one Gulzar Singh, in the said suit, proforma respondent No.20 has sought declaration to the effect that the sale deed dated 31/7/1997 executed by above named Gulzar Singh in favour of respondent No.11 be declared as null and void with consequential relief. It was further stated by her in the said suit that respondent No.11 or Gulzar Singh were not in possession of any portion of land in survey No.658. It is also stated that Gulzar Singh had no authority to sell any specific portion of land in survey No.658 to respondent No.11.
8. That the proforma respondent No.19 and 20 have also jointly filed a suit under section 95(2) of the Land Revenue Act and sought declaration to the effect that the demarcation made by Naib Tehsildar Bahu on the directions of Deputy Commissioner as null and void and inoperative. The suit is pending in the court of 1st Civil Subordinate Judge, Jammu and the court has stayed the operation of the demarcation report vide its order dated 10/9/2007. A copy of the said order is annexed herewith this petition as Annexure-J.
9. That the above named Sanjay Gandotra, Mrs. Shalini Gandotra, Mrs. Monika Gupta, Smt.Shivani Gupta and Geetanjali have also filed a suit against respondents 11 to 18 and other persons for prohibitory injunction which suit is pending in the court of 1st Civil Subordinate Judge, Jammu. The court has been pleased to pass interim order vide its order dated 13/8/2007. A copy of the said order is annexed herewith this petition as Annexure-K.
10. That during the pendency of the aforesaid suits and cross suits by and between proforma respondents and private respondents, respondent No.18 filed a complaint against some revenue officers on 28/2/2008 with Inspector General of Police, Crimes & Railways, Jammu, which complaint had been forwarded alongwith draft FIR, inquiry report and the file to Sub-Divisional Police Officer (Sub-Division) whereupon FIR No.17/2008 came to be registered. a copy of the FIR alongwith the typed copy is annexed herewith this petition as Annexure-L. It is significant to mention here that in the aforesaid complaint, the above respondent No.18 has sought that he has purchased 20 kanals of land at village Chowadi falling under Khewat No.26, Khata No.426 and Khasra No.658 under agreement to sell and power of attorney from respondent No.17 and that he approached the concerned revenue authorities for demarcation of said land which was demarcated and that he was in possession of the land but because of his engagements outside the state, he alleged that proforma respondent No.19 in connivance with one Ravinder Kumar and Subash, the then Patwari Halqa has executed a sale deed in respect of the land which he has purchased under agreement to sell and power of attorney and accordingly sought legal action. The petitioner herein for the first time in view of his being attorney of the proforma respondents falsely implicated in the aforesaid FIR for the petitioner had resisted ever attempt and move laid down by the private respondents at the behest of respondent No.3 the then Inspector General of Police, Crimes & Railways, Jammu from dispossessing the proforma respondents of their possession of the aforesaid proprietary land. from that dated onward, the respondent No.3 developed animosity, bias and venom against the petitioner and started harassing him for one reason or the other. The respondents on becoming the Inspector General of Police, Jammu Range started harassing and threatening the petitioner with more force and vigor in order to settle scores with im with the sole aim and object to divest the proforma respondents of their landed property for the petitioner had, as has been stated hereinabove, has been through and through resisting every move and attempt made by respondents at the behest of respondent No.3 in this regard. The respondent No.3 somewhere on the basis of false and frivolous complaint and in order to remove the petitioner from scene and to settle scores with him constituted a Special Investigation Team for investigating a complaint regarding the land grabbing by someone else. The aforesaid fact is evidenced by copy of order No.CB/11579-84 dated 01/12/2011 annexed herewith this petition as Annexure-M. The team had also been entrusted to investigate FIR No.24/2007. It is significant to mention here that the petitioner anticipating a mischief at the hands of respondent No.2 had earlier to the constitution of the team submitted an application before the Deputy Magistrate, Jammu calling of report in any case against the petitioner and the said applications were forwarded to concerned SHOs Police Stations, Channi Himmat and Gangyal. The said police Stations had reported on 22/09/2011 and 24/9/2011. The said applications are annexed herewith this petition as Annexures-N & P respectively.
11. That the respondent No.3 did not stop here but again manipulated filing of an FIR against the petitioner bearing No.171/2011 P/S Gangyal under Sections 341, 540 and 506 at the behest of respondent 9 and 10 in respect of some land measuring 3 kanals 10 marlas covered under khasra No.645 min situated at Greater Kailash and intended to arrest the petitioner in the aforesaid FIR, a copy whereof is annexed herewith this petition as Annexure-Q. The petitioner immediately after coming to know about the registration of the aforesaid FIR applied for bail to the competent court which was granted in terms of order dated 11/1/2012. A copy of the said order is annexed herewith this writ petition as Annexure-R.
12. That the respondent No.3 on seeing his nefarious designs frustrated, raided the house of the petitioner on 20/1/2012 in his absence alongwith the respondents 4 to 8 without any power and authority and threatened and harassed not only the women folk in the house of the petitioner but also the son of the petitioner namely Rajat Jandial. The petitioner came to know that infact his house has been raided in order to effect his arrest in connection with the aforesaid FIR No.171/2011 wherein the Special Investigation Team comprising of respondents 4 and 7 under the directions and at the behest of respondent No.3 had incorporated offences under section 3/25 Arms Act read with Section 34 RPC. The petitioner immediately applied for bail to the competent court in connection with the said offences as well which consequently came to be granted on 23/1/2012. A copy of the said bail order is annexed herewith this petition as Annexure-S. It is significant to mention here that a criminal complaint in this behalf also came to be filed by the son of the petitioner against the aforesaid police officers (respondents 4 to 8 herein) before the Court of Special Mobile Magistrate Jammu who on the basis of prima facie opinion entertained the same and before issuance of the process directed the S.S.P. Jammu to personally probe thoroughly and to report to the court vide its order dated 21/1/2012. A copy of the order dated 21/1/2012 is annexed herewith this writ petition as Annexure-T.
13. That the abuse of process of law inasmuch as personal venom, animosity and bias possessed by the respondents in general and respondent No.3 in particular against the petitioner in writ large on the face that the aforesaid investigating team had been quite aware about the controversy of the aforesaid land alleged to be owned by respondents 9 and 10 and is subject matter of a civil suit titled Mst. Shamah V/S Vikramjeet Singh and another before the court of 3rd Addl. Munsiff, Jammu which fact is evidenced by copy of court order dated 19/8/2011 annexed herewith this writ petition as Annexure-U, and that the said Special Investigation Team had reported the matter in controversy to the Financial Commissioner, Revenue Department vide its report No.13946-49 dated 13/12/2011. A copy of the said report is annexed herewith this writ petition as Annexure-V.
14. That as has been stated hereinabove, the aforesaid facts, circumstances and position would manifestly reveal that the respondent No.3 has developed ill will, malice, animosity and bias against the petitioner with the sole aim and object to effect his arrest in order t nb o injure and harm his reputation in the estimation of general public inasmuch as to remove him from the scene in the matter of controversy of aforesaid land belonging to proforma respondent as being thought to be an obstacle in grabbing the land of proforma respondents who were forced to seek the interim direction passed by the Court implemented through DGP J&K and the Court Learned 1st Civil Subordinate Judge Jammu considering the fact that the respondent no.3 is pressurizing the subordinate officers not to implement the Court direction, vide order dated 28.02.2011 directed the SSP Jammu to get the order implemented. Copy of the order is enclosed as Annexure- In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, the petitioner has strong reason to believe that there is strong threat t his life as well. The petitioner is sought to be arrested and detained by the respondents at the behest of respondent No.3 and the said arrest and detention is likely to cause incalculable harm to the reputation and self esteem of the petitioner. The petitioner is an innocent, peace loving citizen of the State and commands respect in the society and social circles particularly in Jammu besides being an income tax payee. The respondents have implicated the petitioner as an accused in the aforesaid FIR at the behest of respondent No.3 in order to satisfy his ego at any cost and to effect the arrest of the petitioner in a routine manner on mere allegations of commission of offence without there being any reasonable justification whatsoever. The aforesaid acts of omission and commission on the part of respondents speak volumes about their conduct, attitude and intentions. The legal, statutory and fundamental rights of the petitioner particularly under Article 21 of the Constitution. The expression “life” as contained in Article 21 does not connote mere animal existence or continued drudgery through life, but to live with human dignity within its ambit, protection of all kinds and a fair treatment at all levels particularly at the hands of the public servants. The petitioner is sought to be dealt with by respondents in general and the respondent No.3 in particular otherwise than in accordance with the procedure prescribed by law. The respondents are every now and then off and on raiding the house of the petitioner on one pretext or the other causing a scene of insecurity and suspicion in the mind of the petitioner and his family. The said state of affairs has generated a scene of suspicion and insecurity in he mind of the petitioner that the respondents particularly respondent No.3 may commit any mischief with the life, liberty and property of the petitioner has well to do business and owns / possesses huge properties at various places at Jammu besides being in possession of a premier, prestigious and expensive property at Greater Kailash leased out to the petitioner by the Government presently under the charge of the bank, which fact is evidence by the copy of relevant revenue records and the same are annexed herewith this writ petition as Annexure-W collectively. The way the respondents particularly the Special Investigating Team comprising of respondents 4 and 7 has acted in the matter against the petitioner at the behest of the respondent No.3 which has generated a genuine and reasonable apprehension in the mind of the petitioner that the respondents particularly the Special Investigation Team may frame the petitioner in any false and frivolous case on the basis of some concocted and fabricated evidence. The petitioner does not expect a fair, reasonable and transparent investigation in the aforesaid FIR in view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances as also a fair treatment at the hands of the respondents in general and respondent No.4 and 7 in particular which is conducting itself on the directions of respondent No.3. It is relevant to mention here that if a Special Investigation Team has been constituted by respondent No.3 for conducting investigation against the petitioner, what prompted the respondents to raid the house of the petitioner in presence of various officers (respondents 4 to 8) including 50 police personnel. Amongst the said officers, Mr. Abdul Jabbar, IPS (respondent No.6) has no reason to be the part of the investigation of the team but had accompanied the same reportedly at the behest of respondent No.3 when on 20/1/2012, a raid was conducted to the house of the petitioner. The said officer is reportedly working in the office of respondent No.3. With the aforesaid background, this Hon’ble Court may take cognizance of the aforesaid facts and circumstances and come to the rescue of the petitioner by dispensing justice while exercising the extra-ordinary writ jurisdiction. The petitioner does not intend to seek forestalling of the investigation into the matter but craves before this Hon’ble Court in the instant petition that the petitioner has strong and genuine apprehensions that the respondents in general and respondents 4 and 7 are animatic and bias against the petitioner and that the investigation is being conducted with the said animosity and bias the respondents have towards the petitioner, as such, ends of justice demand this Hon’ble Court in view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances to entrust the investigation of the aforesaid case or any other case pending against the petitioner to the Central Bureau of Investigation or any other agency not under the control of respondent No.3 and to monitor the said investigation by itself in order dispense justice and to save the petitioner from the unholy, powerful clutches of the respondents in general and of respondent No.3 in particular.
15. That to substantiate bias, animosity and venom by the respondent no.3 towards the petitioner, substantial evidence is contained in the CD annexed herewith and marked as Annexure-X. On watching the contents of the CD, it would be clear that the respondent no.3 has deliberately with criminal intenytion to frame the petitioner in false and fabricated cases through the SIT headed by a particular officer (respondent no.7) who is in the forefront to file false and fabricated criminal complaints directly in the Police Station and through the Courts also to save their skin and to show to the public that the FIRs are being registered at the instance of the Court.
16. That the CD will reveal how a particular SHO (respondent no.4) was posted at a particular Police Station and how the said officer acted swiftly to frame the petitioner falsely and fabricating the allegations for commission of offences u/s 307 RPC. The CD will reveal the nexus of the respondent no.3 with other members of the SIT. It will further reveal the intention of the respondent no.3 to book and frame the petitioner in as many cases as possible so as to make out a case for framing and putting the petitioner behind bars under the provision of Public Safety Act. The CD will further that the SIT is not only satisfying the ego of respondent no.3 to put the petitioner behind the bars but also the settled corruption for dispossession of the petitioner from the land in dispute and will further reveal the interest of respondents 3, 4 & 7.
17. That the interest and nexus of the respondent no.3 and SIT members to damage the petitioner is further evident from the contents of the CD. That the day a particular officer was posted as SHO, he summoned a particular person and asked him to get a false case instituted for commission of offences u/s 307 RPC against the petitioner whereupon the said person moved application u/s 156(3) CrPC before the Magistrate and got a direction to respondent no.4 to investigate the matter and respondent no.4 registered FIR no171/2011 though under different sections. The nexus between the respondents 3, 4 & 7 is so glaring that in the order of respondent no.3 constituting the SIT (Annexure-M), the respondent no.3 has ordered the investigation of other two FIRs also to be done by these officers one of whom has been obliged by posting as SHO and not only this the respondent no.3 directed that the particular officer shall not be transferred out under any circumstances till the cases are investigated and prior approval of the respondent no.3 is obtained. It is humbly submitted that this is unwarranted restriction and interference within the jurisdiction of the SSP who is the competent authority to transfer the SHO. Such a restriction has been placed only with the object to damage the petitioner and with this sole objective the said officer was posted there.
18. That the petitioner has no other alternative efficacious remedy available but to approach this Hon’ble Court through the medium of this writ petition to invoke its extra-ordinary writ jurisdiction.
19. That the petitioner has not filed any other writ petition on the same facts and for the same relief prior to this writ petition before this Hon’ble Court or before the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India.
IN THE PREMISES, It is therefore, prayed that by issuance of an appropriate writ, order or direction preferably one in the nature of :-
i. MANDAMUS, commanding the respondents to forebear from proceeding with investigation of all the cases pending against the petitioner including FIR No.171/2011.
ii. by issuance of appropriate writ, order or direction, the investigation of the case registered against the petitioner in FIR No.171/2011 may be referred to Central Bureau of Investigation or any other agency not under the control of the respondent No.3 for investigation and the said investigation may kindly be monitored by this Hon’ble court.
iii. MANDAMUS, commanding the respondent No.2 to ensure protection of the person and property of the petitioner and to provide his necessary security as required in the facts and circumstances.
iv. Any other writ, order or direction which this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case be also passed in favour of the petitioner against the respondents.”(KMW NEWS)