Neeru Kalia v. State Of Punjab And Others

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA

AT CHANDIGARH CRWP No.2010 of 2020 Date of Decision: 25.02.2020 Neeru Kalia ......Petitioner Vs State of Punjab and others .....Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJ MOHAN SINGH Present: Mr. Mohit Singla, Advocate for the petitioner.

**** RAJ MOHAN SINGH, J.(Oral) By way of filing the present petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner seeks issuance of necessary directions to the official respondents to protect his life and personal liberty from being invaded by respondents No.4. Learned counsel for the petitioner states that the petitioner is living separately from her husband on the basis of some consensus and children are also living with her. Son of the petitioner has gone abroad and the daughter who is aged about 20 years, is residing with her. She is managing the affairs

CRWP-2010-2020 of the family by way of running a beauty parlour. Petitioner has alleged some incriminating allegations against respondent No.4 who is a Government Employee in Haryana Tourism and who is a distant relative of the petitioner. Petitioner has elaborated precise allegations involving conduct of respondent No.4. In this petition, she has also moved a representation dated 23.01.2020 to SSP, SAS Nagar, Mohali as well as DGP, State of Punjab, Chandigarh in the context of maltreatment meted to her by respondent No.4 but no action has been taken so far.

Notice of motion to respondents No.1 to 3.

On asking of the Court, Mr. Ramandeep Sandhu, Sr. DAG, Punjab accepts notice on behalf of State-respondents No.1 to 3.

At this stage without meaning anything upon the allegations, I am of the view that the petitioner be relegated to approach respondent No.2 before whom she has statedly moved a representation.

Respondent No.2 shall ascertain the truth in the allegations of the petitioner and would pass appropriate order in accordance with law. Respondent No.2 would be at liberty to assess the threat perception of the petitioner and would act in accordance with law. Respondent No.2 would also be at liberty to join the petitioner or any other person acquainted with the

CRWP-2010-2020 facts of the case. Respondent No.2 shall form an independent opinion, without being influenced by any statement of fact recorded hereinabove.

It would be appreciated, if needful in deciding the representation is done within a period of one month from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. Petition stands disposed of.

February 25, 2020 (RAJ MOHAN SINGH) geeta JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No Whether reportable Yes/No