Allowed

Rajdeep Kaur v. State of Punjab and Others

Punjab & Haryana HC23 Sept 2024CRWP/9238/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petition under Article 226 sought State protection of the petitioner's life and liberty from private respondents. Counsel confined the prayer to timely decision on her representation. The Court directed respondent No.2 to decide the representation within two months by a speaking order and allowed the petition.

What did the court decide?

Respondent No.2 directed to decide petitioner's representation dated 04.09.2024 within two months by speaking order and communicate it.

Rajdeep Kaur Vs State of Punja… — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Punjab & Haryana HC (2024)

¶1

CRWP No. 9238 of 2024

¶2

110 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶3

CRWP No. 9238 of 2024 Date of Decision: 23.09.2024

¶4

Rajdeep Kaur ...Pe��oner

¶5

Versus

¶6

State of Punjab and others …Respondents

¶7

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANOOP CHITKARA

¶8

Present: Mr. Nirmaljeet Singh Sidhu, Advocate for the pe��oner.

¶9

Ms. Swa� Batra, D.A.G., Punjab.

¶10

¶11

ANOOP CHITKARA, J.

¶12

Seeking issuance of appropriate direc�ons to the respondent- State to protect the life and liberty of the pe��oner from the hands of respondents No.3 to 8, the pe��oner has come up before this Court under Ar�cle 226 of Cons�tu�on of India.

¶13

Counsel for the pe��oner submits that simply because the husband of the pe��oner has criminal antecedents and because of this, the aforesaid respondents are troubling her. Counsel for the pe��oner confines his prayer to the extent of deciding the representa�on of the pe��oner (Annexure P-1) in a �me bound manner.

¶14

No�ce served upon the official respondent through State counsel. The nature of order which this Court proposes to pass, there is no necessity of calling any response from the State. State counsel submits that there is no need for the pe��oner to fear from the respondents as they are to maintain law and order and protect people from injus�ce.

¶15

State counsel submits that they would take a decision on the same within a period of three months.

¶16

In view of prayer made by counsel for the pe��oner, respondent No.2 is directed to decide representa�on dated 04.09.2024 (Annexure P-1) himself/herself or

¶17

¶18

Jyoti Sharma 2024.09.24 10:05 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment High Court, Sector 1, Chandigarh

¶19

CRWP No. 9238 of 2024

¶20

by delega�ng the same to any officer not below the rank of PPS, within a period of two months by passing a speaking and reasoned order and such order be also communicated to the pe��oner as well as his counsel on the e-mail ID provided to State counsel during the course of day.

¶21

There would be no need for a cer�fied copy of this order, and any Advocate for the Pe��oner and State can download this order and other relevant par�culars from the official web page of this court and a�est it to be a true copy.

¶22

Pe��on is allowed with the observa�ons men�oned above. All pending applica�ons, if any, stand disposed.

¶23

(ANOOP CHITKARA) JUDGE 23.09.2024 Jyo� Sharma Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes Whether reportable: No.

¶24

¶25

Jyoti Sharma 2024.09.24 10:05 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment High Court, Sector 1, Chandigarh

Rajdeep Kaur v. State of Punjab and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rajdeep Kaur v. State of Punjab and Others

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

Anuj Arora and Ors. Vs State of Punjab and Others

Gurpreet Singh and Ors. Vs State of Punjab Anr.

Avtar Singh Vs State of Punjab

Ranjit Kaur Vs State of Punjab and Others

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

Aruna Vs State of Punjab and Others