Jito Devi Vs State of Haryana and Ors. — Writ and Judicial Review | Punjab & Haryana HC (2025)

Jito Devi Vs State of Haryana and Ors. — Writ and Judicial Review | Punjab & Haryana HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Disposed

Issue for consideration

Whether directions should issue to respondents No. 2 and 3 to protect the life and liberty of the petitioner's family from harassment, humiliation and false implication in criminal cases at the hands of respondents No. 4 and 5.

Court's answer

Keeping in view the aforesaid facts and circumstances, this Court is of the considered opinion that no case has been made out to issue any direction to the official respondents.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

CRWP-1034-2025 (O&M) (decided 03.03.2025) (Manisha Batra, J., Oral): Criminal writ petition filed by Jito Devi under Article 226 of the Constitution of India read with Section 528 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, seeking directions to respondents No. 2 and 3 to protect the life and liberty of her family from harassment, humiliation and alleged false implication in criminal cases at the hands of respondents No. 4 and 5. In its reply, the respondent-State reported that FIR No. 126 dated 02.05.2024 under Section 136 of the Electricity Act was registered at Police Station Guhla, Kaithal on a complaint from Roshan Lal regarding theft of his transformer; that petitioner's son Vikram Singh @ Vikram and Amandeep Singh @ Aman were arrested on 07.05.2024; that interrogation disclosures implicated Karan Singh and petitioner's husband Raj Kumar @ Raju, who were nominated in the case, with the accused disclosing commission of 151 thefts from July 2023 to May 2024; and that recoveries effected included 300 kgs. of copper wire, 46 kgs. of rubber copper wire, a car make Swift, a motorcycle and Rs. 6,000/- in cash. The State contended the family was involved in multiple theft cases under investigation and that the false-implication allegations were patently wrong and baseless. Petitioner's counsel did not dispute the registered cases or the recoveries. Holding that no case had been made out to issue any direction to the official respondents, the Court disposed of the petition without granting the sought protection directions.

CRWP-1034-2025 (O&M) -1-

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

112

CRWP-1034-2025 (O&M) Date of decision: 03.03.2025

Jito Devi ...Petitioner

Versus

State of Haryana and others ...Respondents

CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE MANISHA BATRA

Present:Mr. Jagraj Singh Khiva, Adv o cate for the petitioner.

Mr. Apoorv Garg, Senior D A G, Haryana.

MANISHA BATRA, J. (Oral)

The present criminal writ peti t ion has been filed under Article 226 of the Con s titution of India read with Secti o n 528 of Bharatiya Nagarik Sura k sha Sanhita, 2 0 23 for issuance of directions to r espondents No. 2 and 3 to protect the life and li b erty of the family of petitioner a t the hands of respondents No. 4 and 5, as they a re harassing and humiliating th e m and also implicating them in f alse cases.

Reply has been filed by the re s pondent-State. It is submitted th e rein and learne d Senior Deputy Advocate Gener a l, Haryana has argued that on re c eipt of a comp l aint from one Roshan Lal regar d ing theft of his transformer, an FIR bearing N o . 126 dated 02.05.2024 was r egistered under Section 136 o f the Electricity Act at Police Station Guhla, Ka i thal. During investigation of the said case, Vikr a m Singh @ Vikram, who is s o n of the present petitioner, and one Amandeep Singh @ Aman were arrested o n 07.05.2024. During interroga t ion, they discl o sed that Karan Singh and R a j Kumar @ Raju (husband o f the petitioner) were also involved with them an d that they had committed as ma n y as MOHAMMAD WASEEM ANSARI 2025.03.03 15:47 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

CRWP-1034-2025 (O&M) -2-

151 thefts during the period from July, 20 2 3 to May, 2024. On the basis o f the same, Kar a n Singh and Raj Kumar @ Raju were also nominated in the afor e said case. In p u rsuance of their disclosure sta t ements, accused Raj Kumar, K aran Singh and Vikram Singh @ Vikram got r e covered 300 kgs. of copper wir e , 46 kgs. of ru b ber copper wire, a car make Sw i ft, a motorcycle and cash amou n t of Rs. 6,000/ - from their house, which was st o len from different places. It is ar g ued that the fa m ily members of the petitioner a re involved in number of theft c ases and the in v estigation in those cases is goi n g on. The allegations levelled b y the petitioner r egarding false implication are p a tently wrong and baseless. There f ore, it is, urged that the petition is liable to be di s missed. 3. Leaned counsel for the petiti o ner could not dispute the fact that aforesaid c ases have been registered agains t the family members of the petitioner and certai n recoveries of stolen articles hav e also been effected from them. 5. Keeping in view the aforesaid facts and circumstances, this Co u rt is of the con s idered opinion that no case has b e en made out to issue any directi o n to the officia l respondents. Accordingly, the p r esent petition is disposed of.

03.03.2025	(MANISHA BATRA)
Waseem Ansari	JUDGE
Whet her speaking/reasoned	Yes/No
Whet her reportable	Yes/No

MOHAMMAD WASEEM ANSARI 2025.03.03 15:47 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document