Allowed

Kulwant Singh v. State of Punjab & Ors.

Punjab & Haryana HC3 May 2012CRM-M/10013/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A single judge allowed a petition invoking inherent criminal jurisdiction. The court directed the Commissioner of Police to expeditiously consider future threat perception representations by the petitioner regarding apprehended danger, without issuing immediate protection.

What did the court decide?

Direction to the Commissioner of Police, Jalandhar to consider the threat perception as and when raised by the petitioner and pass an appropriate order thereon.

Kulwant Singh Vs State of Punj… — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Punjab & Haryana HC (2012)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶2

Criminal Misc.M-No.10013 of 2011(O&M) Date of Decision:03.05.2012

Kulwant Singh

.....petitioner

Versus

State of Punjab and others

¶7

.....respondents

¶8

CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAMESHWAR SINGH MALIK

¶9

Present: Ms. Sushma Chopra, Advocate for the petitioner.

¶10

Mr. Deepak Balyan, Addl. A.G., Punjab for the State.

¶11

¶12

RAMESHWAR SINGH MALIK J.(ORAL):

¶13

The petitioner has approached this Court, invoking the inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C., seeking direction to respondents No.1 and 2 for providing police protection as he was apprehending danger to his life and liberty at the hands of the private respondents.

¶14

Notice of motion was issued. Reply has been filed by way of affidavit of Jasbir Singh, Deputy Superintendent of Police, Sub Division Shahkot, District Jalandhar, on behalf of respondents No.1 and 2.

¶15

Learned counsel for the State submits that a bare perusal of the contents of para 4 of the reply would speak volume against the petitioner. Learned counsel for the petitioner could not point out any overt act at the instance of respondent No.3 after filing his representation dated 21.3.2011 (Annexure P-2).

¶16

However, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that she would be satisfied in case respondent No.2 is directed to consider the threat perception of the petitioner, as and when raised by way of fresh representation, by passing an appropriate order thereon.

¶17

Learned counsel for the State fairly submits that as and when the petitioner moves an appropriate representation raising threat perception, the same shall be considered and decided in accordance with law.

¶18

In view of the above statement made by learned counsel for the parties and without prejudice to the rights of the parties, the Commissioner of Police, Jalandhar – respondent No.2 is directed to consider the threat perception as and when raised by the petitioner by moving an appropriate representation, dispassionately and expeditiously by passing an appropriate order thereon, in accordance with law.

¶19

With the observations made above, the present petition stands

¶20

disposed of.

¶21

(RAMESHWAR SINGH MALIK) JUDGE

¶22

03.05.2012 sk

Kulwant Singh v. State of Punjab & Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kulwant Singh v. State of Punjab & 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

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

Vandana & Anr. Vs State of Punjab & Ors.

Gurpreet Singh and Anr. Vs State of Punjab and Ors.

Dilbagh Singh Vs State of Punjab etc.

Hardeep Singh Vs State of Punjab and Ors.

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