Dismissed

Simarjeet Kaur and Anr. v. State of Punjab and Ors.

Punjab & Haryana HC21 Jan 2011CRM-M/12717/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The single-judge High Court held that the petitioners' recorded statements, wherein they affirmed no fear from respondent numbers five and six and expressed no desire for security, rendered the petition infructuous. The court dismissed the plea for protection but clarified that future apprehensions must be recorded through proper channels for the State to act.

What did the court decide?

The petition was dismissed as infructuous based on petitioner statements confirming no apprehension of fear and no desire for security.

Simarjeet Kaur and Anr. Vs Sta… — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Punjab & Haryana HC (2011)

¶1

(1)

¶2

Crl. Misc. No. M-12717 of 2010

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶4

Crl. Misc. No. M-12717 of 2010

¶5

DATE OF DECISION: 21.01.2011

¶6

Simarjeet Kaur & Anr.

¶7

..........Petitioners

¶8

Versus

¶9

State of Punjab and others

¶10

..........Respondents

¶11

BEFORE:- HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE DAYA CHAUDHARY

¶12

Present:Mr. Mohd. Yousaf, Advocate for Mr. N.S. Dadwal, Advocate for the petitioners.

¶13

Mr. Gaurav Garg Dhuriwala, AAG, Punjab.

¶14

¶15

DAYA CHAUDHARY, J.

¶16

The present petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed on behalf of Simarjeet Kaur and Balwinder Kumar for issuance of directions to the official respondents to protect their lives and liberty and to provide security, as they apprehend threats at the hands of respondents No.5 and 6.

¶17

Notice of motion was issued to the respondents 3.5.2010 and while issuing notice of motion, it was also mentioned that in case the petitioners approach respondents No.2 to 4 setting out their grievances as mentioned in the petition, respondents No.2 to 4 will look into the allegations and consider the same in accordance with law.

¶18

In response to notice of motion, reply on behalf of respondents No.1 1 to 4 has already been filed and the same is on record.

¶19

(2)

¶20

Crl. Misc. No. M-12717 of 2010

¶21

As per reply, petitioners have got recorded their statements on 11.7.2010 before ASI Avtar Singh that they are not apprehending any fear from respondents No. 5 and 6 and they do not want to take any security. Statements of the petitioners are annexed as Annexures R-1 and R-2 wth the petition.

¶22

Learned counsel for the respondent-State on instructions from ASI Avtar Singh submits that after recording the statements of the petitioners, no complaint has been received from respondents No.5 and 6 and in view of the statement made by the petitioners, the present petition has become infructuous and may be dismissed as such.

¶23

Ordered accordingly.

¶24

However, it is made clear that in future if there is any such apprehension, the petitioners may make their grievance to the official respondents and if any such complaint is made by the petitioners, the same be looked into by keeping in view the allegations mentioned therein and necessary action be taken on the same in accordance with law.

¶25

January 21, 2011 pooja

¶26

(DAYA CHAUDHARY) JUDGE

¶27

Note:-Whether this case is to be referred to the Reporter .......Yes/No

Simarjeet Kaur and Anr. v. State of Punjab and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Simarjeet Kaur and Anr. v. State of Punjab and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Kamla Devi and Anr. Vs State of Haryana and Ors.

Bhajna Ram Vs State of Punjab and Another

Surjit Kaur and Anr. Vs State of Punjab and Ors.

Vinita @ Beena and Another Vs State of Haryana and Others

Sukhujit Kaur and Anr. Vs State of Punjab and Ors.

Ramneet Kaur & Anr. Vs State of Punjab & Ors.