In a In a recent development, a case
under Section 482 of the Criminal
Procedure Code (Cr.P.C) has been
filed by Surinder Kumar and others
against the State of Punjab. The
primary contention in the petition
is to seek relief from unnecessary
harassment by respondent No.5 in
connection with a complaint filed
by respondent No.6. development, a case
under Section 482 of the Criminal
Procedure Code (Cr.P.C) has been
filed by Surinder Kumar and others
against the State of Punjab. The
primary contention in the petition
is to seek relief from unnecessary
harassment by respondent No.5 in
connection with a complaint filed
by respondent No.6.
Background of the Case:
The dispute revolves around a
plot, with petitioner No.1 and
respondent No.6 embroiled in a
civil dispute related to a sale deed
Despite the nature of the matter
being civil, respondent No.6 filed a
complaint, leading to two prior
inquiries, dated 17.01.2022
(Annexure P-2) and 02.06.2023
(Annexure P-4). Both reports
concluded that the allegations
were of a civil nature, and no
evidence of fraud or criminal
activity was found.
However, the petitioners allege
that respondent No.6, with a mala
fide intention, filed another
complaint, initiating a third inquiry
by respondent No.5. The
petitioners argue that this goes
against the instructions issued by
the Director General of Police,
Punjab, on 01.04.2008, which
clearly state that only one inquiry
is required, and any further inquiry
should be conducted in
exceptional cases.
During the hearing, the court
observed that the actions of
respondents No.2 and 5 have
violated the directives of the
Hon'ble Supreme Court and the
court itself, as laid out in Lalita
Kumari's case (2013) and
Jaswinder Singh's case
Consequently, the court has
initiated contempt proceedings
against respondents No.2 and 5
for their failure to adhere to the
legal guidelines.
The court cited various legal
precedents, including Lalita
Kumari's case, which mandates
the registration of an FIR for
cognizable offenses and limits the
scope of preliminary inquiries. The
court emphasized that multiple
inquiries not only cause injustice
but also lead to abuse
harassment, and unnecessary
delays in criminal proceedings.
Respondent No.2, the Senior
Superintendent of Police, SAS
Nagar, has been directed to submit
a detailed affidavit containing
nformation on all ongoing inquiries
in the district. This includes the
complainant's name, date of
complaint, initiation date of the
inquiry, the number of inquiries
conducted, outcomes of each
inquiry, and details of the officials
involved.
Respondents No.2 and 5 are
directed to appear in person
before the court on the next
hearing date to address the
contempt proceedings initiated
against them. The court expressed
concern over the repeated filing of
complaints and multiple inquiries in
District SAS Nagar, emphasizing
the need for strict adherence to
legal instructions.
Case Number:
The case number for reference is
136 CRM-M-5292-2024.
Petitioners vs. Respondents:
Surinder Kumar and others Vs.
State of Punjab and others.
