Raj Kumar v. State Of Punjab And Others
CRM-M-12429-2021 [ 1 ]
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH CRM-M-12429-2021 Date of Decision: 18.03.2021 Raj Kumar..........................................Petitioner
Versus
State of Punjab and others.................. Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE MANJARI NEHRU KAUL ...
(through video conferencing)
Present:
Ms. Prabhjot Kaur, Advocate for the petitioner.
...
MANJARI NEHRU KAUL, J. (Oral) Prayer in the instant petition is for issuance of appropriate direction to respondent No.2 to look into the complaint/representation dated 13.08.2020 (Annexure P4) made by the petitioner to the Senior Superintendent of Police, Patiala.
Learned counsel submits that vide representation dated 13.08.2020 (Annexure P4) the respondent No.2 had been duly intimated about the brutal attack on the petitioner by the private respondents. However, the authorities concerned had failed to initiate any action against the offenders. Learned counsel contends that despite respondent No.2 having been apprised about the commission of cognizable offence by the private respondents, the official respondents had failed to proceed against them under the provisions of law. In support of her submissions, the learned RUPINDER KAUR 2021.03.18 14:09 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document counsel has invited the attention of this court to the MLR dated 23.03.2020
CRM-M-12429-2021 [ 2 ] (Annexure P3) wherein it clearly finds reflected that the petitioner had suffered three lacerated wounds on various parts of his head. It has been submitted that the official respondents were under a legal obligation to pass an appropriate order on his representation.
Notice of motion.
On the asking of the Court, Mr. Luvinder Sofat, AAG, Punjab, accepts notice on behalf of the respondent-State. In the wake of the limited prayer of the petitioner, the respondent No.2 i.e. Senior Superintendent of Police, Patiala, is directed to look into his grievance and take appropriate steps, if any required, under the provisions of law. However, if respondent No.2 does not find the commission of any cognizable offence as alleged or any substance in the allegations levelled in the representation dated 13.08.2020 (Annexure P4), then the petitioner shall be duly informed as per the parameters laid down by the Supreme Court in Lalita Kumari v. Government of Uttar Pradesh & Ors. 2013 (4) RCR (Criminal) 979.
( MANJARI NEHRU KAUL) 18.03.2021 JUDGE rupi Note: Whether speaking/reasoned Yes / No Whether Reportable:
Yes / No RUPINDER KAUR 2021.03.18 14:09 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document