Gisela Singh Vs State of Haryana and Ors.

Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 for issuance of directions to respondents No.1 to 3 to take appropriate action on the complaints dated 27.06.2024; 29.11.2024;

¶17

13.01.2025; 04.02.2025 and 11.02.2025 (Annexures P-5, P-22, P-24, P-25 & P-

¶18

32, respectively) submitted by the petitioner.

¶19

On 26.03.2025, the following order was passed:-

¶20

‘The present petition has been filed under Section 528 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 for issuance of directions to respondents No.1 to 3 to take appropriate action on the complaints dated 27.06.2024; 29.11.2024; 13.01.2025; 04.02.2025 and 11.02.2025 (Annexures P-5, P-22, P-24, P-25 & P-32, respectively) submitted by the petitioner.

¶21

Learned counsel for the petitioner inter alia contends that the petitioner is 86 years old senior citizen who is suffering from various old age ailments. The petitioner is facing continuous harassment and

¶22

Neha 2025.05.20 17:02 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶23

CRM-M-16417-2025

¶24

-2-

¶25

intimidation at the hands of respondents No.4 to 6. The petitioner has reported the matter to the police on number of occasions by submitting complaints but due to the influence of respondents No.4 to 6, who are resourceful persons, the jurisdictional police authorities are not taking any action. It is submitted that each and every incident is video recorded in the CCTV camera installed in the premises of the petitioner. The private respondents are even extending threats to the petitioner through WhatsApp messages and despite that, the police is not taking any action against respondents No.4 to 6. He further submits that the private respondents have constructed two rooms on the roof without obtaining any permission from the authorities concerned and the jurisdictional police authorities have failed to perform their statutory duty.

¶26

Notice of motion.

¶27

M s. Geeta Sharma, DAG, Haryana puts in appearance and accepts notice on behalf of respondents No.1 to 3-State.

¶28

Adjourned to 19.05.2025.

¶29

The Commissioner of Police, Panchkula, is directed to file his affidavit in view of the facts and circumstances of the present case.

¶30

Further, the Estate Officer, Haryana Shehri Vikas Pradhikaran (HSVP), Panchkula, is directed to inspect the House No.452 P, Sector 6, Mansa Devi Complex, Panchkula and files his report whether any illegal constructions have been made in the said house or not and also to indicate the policy with regard to the usage of the water connection as well as roof by the occupants having different shares in the property.’

¶31

In compliance thereof, the learned State counsel has filed affidavit

¶32

of Sh. Sibash Kabiraj, IPS, Commissioner of Police, Panchkula and counsel for respondent-HSVP has filed status report by way of affidavit of Sh.Manav Malik, Estate Officer, HSVP, Panchkula and the same are taken on record.

¶33

The learned State counsel submits that the grievance raised by the petitioner in the present petition has been substantially redressed. One FIR bearing No.55 dated 23.04.2025 under Sections 3(5)/79/126/324(3)/351(2) of BNS has been registered at Police Station MDC Panchkula, on the complaint made by the petitioner against the accused persons and two of the accused have been arrested and the case is under investigation.

¶34

The learned State counsel has assured this Court that the investigation of the case will be taken to its logical conclusion and the

¶35

Neha 2025.05.20 17:02 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶36

CRM-M-16417-2025

¶37

-3-

¶38

investigation will be concluded expeditiously preferably within a period of 03 months.

¶39

However, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the violations of the sanctioned building plan has been made by the private respondents and in case the harsh order of resumption of the plot is passed, it will severely effect the petitioner also without there being any fault on his part.

¶40

In view of the above, counsel for the petitioner prays that illegal structures be ordered to be demolished by the private respondents at their costs.

¶41

Further, learned senior counsel appearing for HSVP submits that notices under Section 17(3) of HSVP Act have been issued by the private respondents for the violations committed by them in the building plan of H.No.452-P, Sector 6, MDC Panchkula and they have been provided personal hearing and appropriate orders will be passed in accordance with law.

¶42

As such, the grievance raised by the petitioner in the present petition, has been substantially redressed and in view of the above, learned counsel for the petitioner wishes to withdraw the present petition at this stage.

¶43

Dismissed as withdrawn at this stage.

¶44

(HARPREET SINGH BRAR) JUDGE

¶45

19.05.2025 Neha

¶46

Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No Whether reportable : Yes/No

¶47

Neha 2025.05.20 17:02 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

Gisela Singh v. State of Haryana and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Gisela Singh v. State of Haryana and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Rohan Vs State of Haryana and Others

Kirpal Singh and Others Vs State of Punjab and Others

Sat Pal Singh Vs State of Punjab

Naveen Kumar Alias Titu Vs State of Haryana

Arun and Sanjay Vs State of Haryana

Vedpal Singh Vs State of Hry.