Dismissed

Sarbjit Singh v. State of Punjab etc.

Punjab & Haryana HC9 Jul 2010CRM-M/1105/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. sought police protection and action against respondents based on apprehended danger. The Court dismissed it solely on the State's submission that prior police scrutiny found allegations false and the underlying land dispute was settled via Lok Adalat.

What did the court decide?

Direction to official respondents for protection and action was denied.

Sarbjit Singh Vs State of Punjab etc. — Punjab & Haryana HC (2010) — LawSathi Research

¶1

Crl. Misc. No. M-1105 of 2010 1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH.

¶3

Crl. Misc. No. M-1105 of 2010 (O&M) Date of decision: 9.7.2010

¶4

Sarabjit Singh ...Petitioner

¶5

Versus

¶6

State of Punjab and others ...Respondents

¶7

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJAN GUPTA

¶8

Present: None for the petitioner.

¶9

Mr. Shailesh Gupta, Deputy Advocate General, Punjab for respondents No.1 to 7. Mr. Harpal Singh Taragarh, Advocate for respondents No.8 to 12.

¶10

Rajan Gupta, J. (oral)

¶11

This is a petition U/S 482 Cr.P.C. seeking a direction to official respondents for protection of life and liberty of the petitioner as also to take appropriate action against respondents No.8 to 16.

¶12

It has been averred in the petition that the petitioner apprehends danger to his life and liberty at the hands of respondents No.8 to 16 and thus, he deserves to be granted police protection. It has also been stated that appropriate action against respondents No.8 to 16 needs to be taken.

¶13

Learned State counsel, however, submits that representation dated 5^th January, 2010, Annexure P-2 submitted by the petitioner was looked into by the SHO, Police Station Kathu Nangal and it was found

¶14

Crl. Misc. No. M-1105 of 2010 2

¶15

that the allegation regarding incident dated 4^th January, 2010 where false and frivolous. According to learned counsel the entire dispute was amicably resolved between the parties. The matter had also been referred to Lok Adalat. In view of the compromise dated 20^th December, 2008, disputed land was handed over to the rightful claimant. He, therefore, submits that no cause of action survives in this petition. He has referred to affidavit of Gursewak Singh, Deputy Superintendent of Police, Majitha filed in this regard.

¶16

No one has put in appearance on behalf of the petitioner to controvert the submissions made by learned State counsel.

¶17

In view of the fact that representation preferred by the petitioner has already been considered by the concerned police officer and allegations levelled in the complaint have been found to be false, no further direction is required to be given by this court.

¶18

The petition is, thus, devoid of merit and is hereby

¶19

dismissed.

¶20

(RAJAN GUPTA) JUDGE

¶21

9.7.2010 'rajpal'

Sarbjit Singh v. State of Punjab etc.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sarbjit Singh v. State of Punjab etc.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Surender Singh and Anr. Vs State of Haryana

Kuldeep Singh Vs State of Punjab

Suraj Pal Vs State of Punjab

Jagbir Singh and Others Vs State of Punjab and Others

Inderjit Singh Vs State of Punjab & Ors.

Heena and Anr. Vs State of Punjab and Ors.