Dalip Kaur v. State Of Punjab And ORS

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA

AT CHANDIGARH Decided on : 30.05.2023 Dalip Kaur . . . Petitioner(s)

Versus

State of Punjab and others . . . Respondent(s)

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY VASHISTH PRESENT: Mr. DPS Joura, Advocate for Mr. Munish Raj Chaudhary, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. J.S. Arora, DAG, Punjab.

**** SANJAY VASHISTH, J. (Oral) 1.

In the present protection petition, after hearing the petitioner on 28.03.2023, this Court passed the following order:- "Present:

Mr. Munish Raj Chaudhary, Advocate for the petitioner(s).

**** Though, it appears to be completely a family dispute in regard to the family property, yet to find out whether in actual, there is any threat perception to the petitioner who is a widow and is aged about 75 years, learned State counsel is directed to file a status report in the matter.

Adjourned to 30.05.2023. "

2.

Today, learned State counsel has filed the status report dated 30.05.2023 by way of an affidavit of Sanjeev Goyal, PPS, Deputy Superintendent of Police, Sub-Division Mansa, District Mansa, on behalf of respondents No. 1 & 4. Same is taken on record. Registry is directed to tag the same at appropriate place. State counsel submits that a complaint moved by the petitioner has been examined and finding no substance of truth in the said complaint, same was ordered to be consigned by Senior Superintendent of Police, Mansa.

Counsel also submits that dispute between the parties is in regard to the transfer of property, regarding which, the false allegations

-2seems to be levelled by the petitioner and no threat was found to be issued to the petitioner in the jurisdiction of District Mansa. Relevant paragraph No. 3 of the said status report says as under:- "3.

That in compliance of the order dated 28.03.2023, passed by this Hon'ble Court, it is, submitted that official record was perused. From perusal of the official record, it reveals that the application (Annexure P- 2) moved by the Petitioner, qua the private respondents was found to be merit less, as such, the same was ordered to be consigned, vide the orders of The Senior Superintendent of Police, Mansa Dy. Supdt. Pont would be pertinent to mention here that during the enquiry (S.D.) MANceedings in respect of the above mentioned application moved by the petitioner, it was found that petitioner is the resident of Village Daraj. District Barnala and that of Respondent No.

6 Ranjit Singh is the resident of Village Wajidke, District Barnala, as such, police proceeding in this respect, if any, is to be carried out by the police officials of District Barnala. It is further submitted that till date no written or verbal intimation was received with the police authorities of District Police Office Mansa, in respect of passing of threats to the petitioner and present dispute relates with the transfer of property, perfig which false allegations seems to be leveled by the petitioner. He no that was found to be passed to the petitioner in the jurisdiction of District Mansa."

3.

Faced with the situation, learned counsel for the petitioner seeks permission to withdraw the present petition with liberty to avail appropriate remedy, available to the petitioner, under the law.

-34.

Dismissed as withdrawn, with liberty as sought and recorded here above.

(SANJAY VASHISTH) JUDGE 30.05.2023 Riya Whether speaking/reasoned:

Yes/No Whether Reportable:

Yes/No