The petitioner sought directions under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for protection against threatening calls demanding money. The court dismissed the petition, finding the supporting representation vague due to lack of telephone numbers, requiring no police action.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
Crl. Misc. No. M- 1288 of 2013
----1--
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA, CHANDIGARH
Crl. Misc. No. M- 1288 of 2013 Date of decision. 15.01.2013
Surinder Singh
....... Petitioner
Versus
The State of Punjab and ors.
.......Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJENDER SINGH MALIK
Present:Mr. Maninder Arora,Advocate for the petitioner.
VIJENDER SINGH MALIK, J.
Surinder Singh, the petitioner has brought this petition under section 482 Cr.P.C. for directions to respondents no. 2 and 3 to protect his life and liberty.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the petitioner is receiving threatening calls from unknown persons asking him to pay a sum of Rs.3,00,000/-. According to him, he has agreed to sell his residential plot at Ludhiana and has received earnest money against that and thereafter he has started receiving those threatening calls. He claims that he approached respondents no. 2 and 3 calling upon them to come to his rescue but nothing has been done.
Crl. Misc. No. M- 1288 of 2013 ----2--
Annexure P-1 is the representation allegedly made by the petitioner to Senior Superintendent of Police, Ludhiana, Punjab and Station House Officer, Police Station Division No.1, Samrala Road, District Ludhiana. A perusal of the same would show that he has neither mentioned the telephone number at which the threatening calls are being received as also the telephone numbers from which those calls have been received. In these circumstances, the representation is nothing but vague and calls for no action. Hence, the petition is dismissed.
January 15, 2013 (VIJENDER SINGH MALIK) dinesh JUDGE
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the vague petition with incomplete details regarding threatening calls warrants judicial direction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for protection of life and liberty.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Surinder Singh
The State of Punjab
VIJENDER SINGH MALIK
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
