Back
2021 Supreme(UK) 702
UTTARAKHAND HIGH COURT
Hon’ble Chief Justice Mr. Raghvendra Singh Chauhan and
Hon’ble Mr. Justice Alok Kumar Verma
Writ Petition (Crl.) No. 954 of 2021
SUBHASH SAINI – Petitioner
Versus
STATE OF UTTARAKHAND & ORS. – Respondent
Decided on : 22.06.2021
For the Petitioner: Mr. G.D. Joshi, Learned Counsel
For the Respondent: Mr. J.S. Virk, Learned Dy. Adv. General
Headnote:
Police Protection – Petitioner seeking for – Determination of – It is the duty of State to protect its people – But Police Department cannot be asked to provide protection to an individual indefinitely – Since law provides ample remedies to a citizen for protection of his life and property – Citizen is required to the vigilant, and to lake recourse to these at the earliest – A citizen cannot hope and pray that police protection should be provided to him throughout his life – Admittedly, from year 2012 to 2014, police protection was provided to petitioner and again from year 2017, police protection has been provided till May, 2021 – Request that police protection should be provided to petitioner for next three years is a rather unreasonable request – High Court is not inclined to direct respondents to provide police protection to petitioner – Petition dismissed.
(Paras 6 to 10)
iqfyl laj{k.k & ds fy, ;kfpdkdÙkkZ pkg jgk gS & vo/kkj.k vius ukxfjdksa dk laj{k.k ¼lqj{kk½ djuk jkT; ¼ljdkj½ dk drZO; gS & ijUrq iqfyl foHkkx dks fdlh O;fDr dks vizR;{k :i ls laj{k.k miyC/k djus ds fy, ugha dgk tk ldrk gS & pw¡fd fof/k ,d ukxfjd dks vius thou ,oa lEifRr ds laj{k.k ds fy, i;kZIr mipkj iznku djrk gS & vr% ukxfjd ls lrdZ gksus vkSj izkjEHk esa buds voyEc ysus dh vis{kk dh tkrh gS & ,d ukxfjd ;g vk’kk vkSj izkFkZuk ugha dj ldrk fd mlds lEiw.kZ thou Hkj mls iqfyl laj{k.k iznku fd;k tkuk pkfg;s & LohÑr :i ls] o”kZ 2012 ls o”kZ 2014 rd ;kfpdkdÙkkZ dks iqfyl laj{k.k miyC/k djk;k x;k Fkk vkSj iqu% o”kZ esa iqfyl laj{k.k mls ebZ 2021 rd miyC/k fd;k x;k Fkk ;g izkFkZuk fd ;kfpdkdÙkkZ dks vxys rhu o”kks± ds fy, iqfyl laj{k.k iznku fd;k tk;s] vR;f/kd vrkfdZd izkFkZuk gS & mPp U;k;ky; ;kfpdkdÙkkZ dks iqfyl laj{k.k iznku djus ds funsZ’k nsus ds fy, io`Rr ugha gS & ;kfpdk [kkfjtA ¼izLrj 6 ls 10½
JUDGMENT
(per Hon'ble The Chief Justice Sri Raghvendra Singh Chauhan)
The petitioner, Mr. Subhash Saini, has filed the present Criminal Miscellaneous Writ Petition before this Court, inter alia, on the basis of the following facts :-
(i) The petitioner claims to be a permanent resident of Mohalla Shekpura, Kanakhal, District Haridwar. He claims that he is engaged in real estate business.
(ii) The petitioner further claims that he is the owner of a portion of land, falling within Khasra Nos. 184 and 191, situated in Mohalla Shekpura, Kanakhal, District Haridwar. The said parcel of land is in a prime location. Therefore, it commands a very high price in the open market.
(iii) According to the petitioner, due to the high value [of the property, a few land grabbers and anti-social elements want to grab the said parcel of land. In order to carry out their dubious plan, in the year 2012 certain land grabbers had conspired to kill the petitioner. In fact, he was fired at, with a gun, by these anti-social elements. A criminal case, namely Case Crime No. 253 of 2012, was registered with the Police Station Kanakhal, District Haridwar for offence punishable under Section 307 IPC. Because of the said incident, the petitioner was provided police protection from the year 2012 to 2014.
(iv) Again, in the year 2017, the same set of goons decided to kill the petitioner. However, due to a mistaken identity, they killed one Mr. Amit Dixit. The said incident was registered as Case Crime No. 139 of 2017 for offences punishable under Sections 302, 120-B, 34 and 115 IPC. During the investigation of the said case, it was discovered that, in fact, the assailants wanted to get rid of the petitioner, and not of Mr. Amit Dixit. Because of the said incident, the petitioner was again provided police protection from the year 2017 till recently.
(v) However, suddenly on 07.05.2021 the police protection has been withdrawn without any rhyme or reason. According to the petitioner, the threat perception continues to be alive. For, his life and property continue to be endangered by the land grabbers and anti-social elements.
(vi) The petitioner further claims that he had filed representations before the Senior Superintendent of Police, Haridwar, respondent no. 2, to continue to provide police protection to him. Similarly, on 17.05.2021, he had filed a representation before the Secretary, Home, Government of Uttarakhand, with the same prayer. However, despite his repeated requests, no police protection has been provided to him so far.
(vii) Lastly, the petitioner claims that, in the month of March, 2021, the learned Trial Court has acquitted some of the persons, who were involved in the alleged murder of Mr. Amit Dixit. Therefore, the petitioner has a bonafide belief that the said land grabbers, who are now set at liberty, will hunt him down, and get rid of him.
2. Therefore, the present writ petition before this Court.
3. This Court has asked Mr. G.D. Joshi, the learned counsel for the petitioner, that, from the year 2012 to 2021, whether the petitioner had ever hired private security guards for his own security, or not? Moreover, whether the petitioner has filed any complaint, under the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, before the learned Executive Magistrate against the possible assailants for maintaining peace and tranquility, or not? To these questions, the learned counsel for the petitioner has frankly conceded that the petitioner has neither hired any private security guards, nor has taken any steps before the learned Executive Magistrate. The learned counsel for the petitioner, nonetheless, has prayed that police protection should be provided to him for at least three years.
4. Heard Mr. G.D. Joshi, the learned counsel for the petitioner, and perused the record submitted by the petitioner.
5. Although, it is the duty of the State to protect its people, but the Police Department cannot be asked to provide police protection to an individual indefinitely. Since the law prov
