Full Text
Translation output
% 13.11.2009
Present: Mr.Kanchan Singh, Mr.Saurabh Seth and Mr. Amit
Bajaj, Advocates for the Petitioner aiong with
Petitioner in person.
Ms.jVjeera Bhatia, Standing Counsel for the
Respondent.
+ Cont.Case (CrI.) No.23/2009
The grievance of the petitioner, who is a dog lover, is that she has been tending to street dogs and in that process there has been violence by the residents of the area concerned.
It is the case of the petitioner that the duty of the police extends to protecting the petitioner and despite directions of the learned Single Judge passed on 04.08.2009 and 12.08.2009, the police failed to take any action when an unsavoury incident occurred and the petitioner made a PGR call on 02.10.2009 at about 8.30 P.M., alleging abuse and assault by a large number of residents of Freedom Fighter Enclave, Neb Sarai, New Delhi. It is in view of these facts that a petition for criminal contempt has been filed. The status report has been filed before us which shows that the number of PGR van noted by the petitioner as also the name of the ASI who is alleged to have come to the site and refused to help the petitioner are apparently incorrect. In the status report, it has been categorically stated that there is no PGR van having registration no.DL IGJ 4755 as alleged by the petitioner and further there is no officer by the name of ASI
Satinder Singh posted in South Zone or even in South East Zone.
2009:DHC:13738-DB t
VD
There thus appears to be some mistake in noting of theYCR no. and even the officer against whom the petitioner has made allegations. In the absence of correct particulars, it is not possible to proceed in the present petition.
We, however, note that undisputedly protective orders have been passed in favour of the petitioner. The petitioner has annexed to the petition photographs of her car which is alleged to have been damaged by the residents of the area who apparently held a contrary view on the issue ofstray canine population.
We are pained to note that educated people should express their difference of opinion in this fashion by using physical force.
We dispose of the present petition with a direction to the police to take adequate steps in terms of the orders passed by the learned Single Judge and to investigate the FIR which is already registered.
Petition stands disposed of.
Dasti.
NOVEIVIBER 13, 2009 dm
SANJAY KISHAN'KAUL,J, AJITBHARIHOKE, J.
2009:DHC:13738-DB
Present: Mr.Kanchan Singh, Mr.Saurabh Seth and Mr. Amit
Bajaj, Advocates for the Petitioner aiong with
Petitioner in person.
Ms.jVjeera Bhatia, Standing Counsel for the
Respondent.
+ Cont.Case (CrI.) No.23/2009
The grievance of the petitioner, who is a dog lover, is that she has been tending to street dogs and in that process there has been violence by the residents of the area concerned.
It is the case of the petitioner that the duty of the police extends to protecting the petitioner and despite directions of the learned Single Judge passed on 04.08.2009 and 12.08.2009, the police failed to take any action when an unsavoury incident occurred and the petitioner made a PGR call on 02.10.2009 at about 8.30 P.M., alleging abuse and assault by a large number of residents of Freedom Fighter Enclave, Neb Sarai, New Delhi. It is in view of these facts that a petition for criminal contempt has been filed. The status report has been filed before us which shows that the number of PGR van noted by the petitioner as also the name of the ASI who is alleged to have come to the site and refused to help the petitioner are apparently incorrect. In the status report, it has been categorically stated that there is no PGR van having registration no.DL IGJ 4755 as alleged by the petitioner and further there is no officer by the name of ASI
Satinder Singh posted in South Zone or even in South East Zone.
2009:DHC:13738-DB t
VD
There thus appears to be some mistake in noting of theYCR no. and even the officer against whom the petitioner has made allegations. In the absence of correct particulars, it is not possible to proceed in the present petition.
We, however, note that undisputedly protective orders have been passed in favour of the petitioner. The petitioner has annexed to the petition photographs of her car which is alleged to have been damaged by the residents of the area who apparently held a contrary view on the issue ofstray canine population.
We are pained to note that educated people should express their difference of opinion in this fashion by using physical force.
We dispose of the present petition with a direction to the police to take adequate steps in terms of the orders passed by the learned Single Judge and to investigate the FIR which is already registered.
Petition stands disposed of.
Dasti.
NOVEIVIBER 13, 2009 dm
SANJAY KISHAN'KAUL,J, AJITBHARIHOKE, J.
2009:DHC:13738-DB
JUDGMENT