Disposed¶22

Mukhtiar Singh v. State of Punjab and Others

Punjab & Haryana HC13 Oct 2025CRM-M/7603/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

CRM-M-7603-2025 (O&M); Mukhtiar Singh v. State of Punjab; Punjab & Haryana High Court; Justice Aman Chaudhary; decided 02.09.2025; writ petition disposed without further orders after DSP (Sri Hargobindpur, District Batala) reply dated 21.04.2025; police enquiry found complaints re disobedience of court orders and illegal construction unsubstantiated; proceedings under S.107/151 Cr.P.C. initiated against both parties; matter held civil in nature; armed-attack allegation found false; Annexure P-4/P-5 complaints; Batala/Gurdaspur/Rangar Nangal.

What did the court decide?

In view of the findings in the DSP's reply dated 21.04.2025, no further orders are required to be passed; the petition is disposed of accordingly. ¶20

Mukhtiar Singh Vs State of Punjab and Others — Punjab & Haryana HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

¶1

CRM-M-7603-2025 (O&M) - 1 -

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶3

113+256

¶4

CRM-M-7603-2025 (O&M) Decided on : 02.09.2025

¶5

Mukhtiar Singh . . . Petitioner Versus State of Punjab and Others . . . Respondent

¶6

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMAN CHAUDHARY

¶7

PRESENT: Mr. Mehakpreet Singh, Advocate for the petitioner.

¶8

Mr. Manipal Singh Atwal, DAG, Punjab.

¶9

Mr. Munish Puri, Advocate for respondent No.4 to 14.

¶10

¶11

AMAN CHAUDHARY, J. (Oral)

¶12

Learned State counsel refers to para Nos.4(iv) to 4(vii) of the reply dated 21.04.2025 filed by Deputy Superintendent of Police, Sub Division Sri Hargobindpur, District Batala, which read thus:

¶13

“iv) That, complaint/representation annexure P-4 bearing No.901-PGD Dated 15.03.2024 was received in the office of the Senior Superintendent of Police, Batala and the same was entrusted to SHO Police Station Ranger Nangal, District Gurdaspur. The petitioner namely Mukhtiar Singh s/o Bachan Singh resident of Village Sukha Chira, Tehsil Batala, District Gurdaspur had also filed the complaint bearing No.72-DC Dated 23.03.2024 and No.64-PGRS Dated 22.04.2024 were submitted against Hartaj Singh, Baldev Singh, Sukhdev Singh, Harpal Singh Sons of Sakattar Singh, Fariad Singh S/o Surta Singh, Budh Singh s/o Hakam Singh, Dhanraj Singh @ Raju S/o Niranjan Singh resident of Sukha Chira, Tehsil Batala, District Gurdaspur for disobeying the court orders and for raising illegal constructions. which were already been enquired by the then SHO Police Station Rangar Nangal and the proceedings under section 107/151 Cr.P.C. were initiated against both the parties. The SHO Police Station Rangar Nangal/Investigating Officer had directed the parties to

¶14

VISHAL VARDHAN 2025.09.04 09:11 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶15

CRM-M-7603-2025 (O&M) - 2 -

¶16

persue the matter further before the competent court as the matter being civil in nature.

¶17

v) That, Annexure P-5 complaint/representation dated 26.11.2024 submitted by Mukhtiar Singh S/o Bachan Singh resident of Sukha Chira, Tehsil Batala, District Gurdaspur was addressed to the SHO Police Station Rangar Nangal has not been received in Police Station as per the record of Police Station Rangar Nangal.

¶18

vi) That, the allegation of the petitioner that Baldev Singh had attacked him with pistol, Hartaj Singh with rifle, Sukhdev Singh, Harpal Singh, Fariad Singh S/o Surta Singh, Budh Singh S/o Hukam Singh, Dhanraj Singh S/o Niranjan Singh armed with sticks. In this regard, no evidence has come out during the discreet and open enquiry. Thus the allegations were found to be false by the enquiry officer.

¶19

vii) That, the allegations of the petitioner to the extent that Narinder Singh had arranged for masons, electricians etc. for the construction of houses. But it has been revealed out from the village that Narinder Singh who performs duties at Gurdwara Sahib and also works as an electrician in private sector. However, nothing has come out regarding the allegations alleged by the petitioner.”

¶20