Sarwan Kumar vs State of Haryana and Others

Rameshwar Singh Malik J.—Feeling aggrieved against the alleged inaction on the part of the administrative authorities, the petitioner has approached this Court by way of instant petition, u/s 482 Cr.P.C. seeking direction to respondent No.3, to probe the incident of forcible cutting of the crops of the petitioner by respondent No.8, in alleged connivance with the other official respondents. Notice of motion was issued and pursuant thereto, written statement of Satbir Singh Kundu, Sub-Divisional Magistrate(C), Thanesar (Kurukshetra), on behalf of respondents No.1,2 and 4 was filed. Affidavit dated 06.09.2011 of Deputy Commissioner, Kurukshetra was also filed.

Another written statement was filed by Rajender Kumar, Naib Tehsildar, Ladwa (Kurukshetra)-respondent No.7. Further, affidavit dated 13.09.2011 of Parul Kush, Superintendent of Police, Kurukshetra was filed. Separate reply by way of affidavit of Abhey Ram, Sub Inspector-respondent No.5 was filed whereas separate written statement was filed by respondent No.8. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that respondent No.8 has cut the crops forcibly, in connivance with the official respondents, which needs a thorough probe and thereafter suitable action is required to be taken against him by way of registration of criminal case.

On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents submitted that the matter has been thoroughly gone into and finally it has been found that petitioner and respondent No.8 are the real brothers, between whom civil litigation had been going on. Learned counsel for respondent No.8 has submitted that since the application of the petitioner under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC, filed in his suit for permanent injunction, was dismissed by the learned Civil Court vide its self contained order dated 15.06.2011 (Anneuxre R8/5), the present petition is wholly misconceived and is liable to be dismissed with costs.

Having heard learned counsel for the parties and after going through the record of the case, this Court is of the considered opinion that present one is a fit case for invoking the inherent jurisdiction of this Court u/s 482 Cr.P.C. The petitioner is not remediless in the obtaining circumstances of the present case and he was having equally efficacious alternative remedy, which he could have availed but has chosen not to avail, before rushing to this Court by filing the instant petition u/s 482 Cr.P.C.

The view taken by this Court also finds support from the judgment of the Hon''ble Supreme Court in the case of Sakiri Vasu Vs. State of U.P. and Others, In view of the totality of the facts and circumstances of the present case, noted above, coupled with the reasons aforementioned, present petition is ordered to be disposed of, granting liberty to the petitioner to avail his remedy, in accordance with law.