Disposed

Ramandeep Singh v. State of Haryana & Ors.

Punjab & Haryana HC14 May 2012CRM-M/10889/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In suo motu proceedings, the Court disposed of a petition under Sec. 482 Cr.P.C. seeking security for the petitioner, who resides outside Haryana. Holding the petition infructuous as no immediate threat was found, liberty was granted to approach authorities if threats recur.

What did the court decide?

Petition disposed as infructuous; liberty granted to approach authorities if threats recur.

Ramandeep Singh Vs State of Haryana & Ors. — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Punjab & Haryana HC (2012)

¶1

Criminal Misc.M-No.10889 of 2012(O & M)

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶4

Criminal Misc.M-No.10889 of 2012(O & M) Date of Decision:14.05.2012

¶5

Ramandeep Singh @ Summy

¶6

.....petitioner

¶7

Versus

¶8

State of Haryana & ors.

¶9

.....respondents

¶10

CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAMESHWAR SINGH MALIK

¶11

Present: Mr.R.S.Chahal, Advocate for the petitioner

¶12

Mr.Gaurav Dhir, Deputy Advocate General, Haryana

¶13

¶14

RAMESHWAR SINGH MALIK J.(ORAL):

¶15

The petitioner has approached this Court, by way of instant petition, under Section 482 Cr.P.C.invoking its inherent jurisdiction, seeking directions to respondents No.1 to 3 to provide security to the life and property of the petitioner.

¶16

Notice of motion was issued and pursuant thereto, reply by way of affidavit of Krishan Kumar, HPS, Assistant Commissioner of Police, Kalka, District Panchkula, on behalf of respondents No.1 to 3 has been filed, the same is taken on record and copy thereof has been supplied to the learned counsel for the petitioner.

¶17

Learned State counsel, on instructions from SI Om Parkash, Police Station Pinjore, submits that as per the list annexed as Annexure R- 1 with the reply, as many as 17 criminal cases have been registered against the petitioner, so far. Learned State counsel further submits that petitioner is, as a matter of fact, a permanent resident of MIG House No.

¶18

Criminal Misc.M-No.10889 of 2012(O & M) 2

¶19

197, Sector 4, Parwanoo, District Solan, Himachal Pradesh. Thus the threat perception has been considered and it has not been found to be true because the petitioner is not resident of State of Haryana.

¶20

However, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that he has been ordered to be acquitted in most of the cases, referred in Annexure R-1. He further submits that although the petitioner is having two private gunmen hired by him yet he needs more security as he has been receiving threatening calls.

¶21

Learned State counsel, while relying upon the averments taken in para No.5 of the reply, submits that after receiving the copy of this petition, statement of the petitioner was also recorded but he was unable to tell the telephone numbers from which he had allegedly received the threatening calls. He further submits, while relying upon the averments taken in para No.6 of the reply that after receipt of representation from the petitioner, threat perception was assessed. It was found that there is no threat to his life because of which no security guard was provided. Learned State counsel also submits that in view of the reply filed by the State, the present petition is liable to be dismissed.

¶22

Faced with the above situation, learned counsel for the petitioner fairly states that let the instant petition be ordered to be disposed of as having been rendered infructuous but liberty may be granted to the petitioner to move the appropriate authority again as and when he faces threat to his life and liberty.

¶23

In view of the above statements made by learned counsel for the parties and without prejudice to the rights of the parties, the present petition is ordered to be disposed of as having been rendered infructuous, at this stage. However, liberty is granted to the petitioner to approach the concerned authority as and when he again faces threat to his life and

¶24

Criminal Misc.M-No.10889 of 2012(O & M)

¶25

¶26

liberty and the authorities concerned shall consider the threat perception raised by the petitioner, dispassionately and expeditiously, passing appropriate order thereon, in accordance with law.

¶27

With the observations made above, the present petition

¶28

stands disposed of.

¶29

(RAMESHWAR SINGH MALIK) JUDGE

¶30

14.05.2012

¶31

neenu

Ramandeep Singh v. State of Haryana & Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ramandeep Singh v. State of Haryana & 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

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

Chain Lal & Anr. Vs State of Punjab & Ors.

Sarpinder Kaur and Another Vs State of Punjab and Others

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

Mahavir Singh Vs State of Haryana and Others

Manvi & Anr. Vs State of Punjab & Ors.