Full Text
Translation output
$-53 HIGH COURT OF DELHI
W.P.(CRL) 1761/2010
BHAGWAN SINGH Petitioner
Through Petitioner in person.
W.P.(CRL) 1761/2010
BHAGWAN SINGH Petitioner
Through Petitioner in person.
VERSUS
STATE & ORS Respondent
Through Mr. Saleem Ahmed, ASC for State with Mr. Kumar Vijayendra, Adv. with Mr. Kulvir Singh, SI, P.S.
Sultanpur.
Mr. R.D. Mishra, Adv. for R-5.
Through Mr. Saleem Ahmed, ASC for State with Mr. Kumar Vijayendra, Adv. with Mr. Kulvir Singh, SI, P.S.
Sultanpur.
Mr. R.D. Mishra, Adv. for R-5.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MUKTA GUPTA
17.08.2011 By this petition the Petitioner seeks Police protection on the ground that he is being threatened by the Respondent No.5 who has to recover the money from him.
On a notice being issued a status report has been filed by the State.
As per the status report the Petitioner filed a complaint at P.S. Sultanpuri on the 19^^ November, 2010 wherein he stated that about three years ago he had taken a loan of Rs. 20,000/- from Ram Karan Rathi, the Respondent No.5
17.08.2011 By this petition the Petitioner seeks Police protection on the ground that he is being threatened by the Respondent No.5 who has to recover the money from him.
On a notice being issued a status report has been filed by the State.
As per the status report the Petitioner filed a complaint at P.S. Sultanpuri on the 19^^ November, 2010 wherein he stated that about three years ago he had taken a loan of Rs. 20,000/- from Ram Karan Rathi, the Respondent No.5
W.R(CRL) 1761/2010
2011:DHC:18819 k herein and returned Rs. 24,000/- after two months including interest for two months. However, the Respondent is still demanding Rs. 3,50,000/- stating that the amount due ofRs. 20,000/- @ 10% monthly interesthas become Rs.
3,50,000/-.
Pursuant to the orders ofthis Court the Police protection was provided to the Petitioner. As per the status report the matter between the parties is essentially a money dispute and there was no threat perception. It is stated that the Petitioner is not receiving any threat and he needs no more protection.
Be that as it May, from the perusal of the record and from the version of the parties, it is apparent that there is a dispute for recovery of money between the parties. The threat perception has been weighed. It has been found that there is no threat to the Petitioner. Thus no orders are required to be passed in the present petition.
Petition is dismissed.
AUGUST 17,2011 MUKTA GUPTA,J 'ga'
2011:DHC:18819 k herein and returned Rs. 24,000/- after two months including interest for two months. However, the Respondent is still demanding Rs. 3,50,000/- stating that the amount due ofRs. 20,000/- @ 10% monthly interesthas become Rs.
3,50,000/-.
Pursuant to the orders ofthis Court the Police protection was provided to the Petitioner. As per the status report the matter between the parties is essentially a money dispute and there was no threat perception. It is stated that the Petitioner is not receiving any threat and he needs no more protection.
Be that as it May, from the perusal of the record and from the version of the parties, it is apparent that there is a dispute for recovery of money between the parties. The threat perception has been weighed. It has been found that there is no threat to the Petitioner. Thus no orders are required to be passed in the present petition.
Petition is dismissed.
AUGUST 17,2011 MUKTA GUPTA,J 'ga'
W.P.(CRL) 1761/2010 page 2 of2
2011:DHC:18819
2011:DHC:18819
JUDGMENT