High Court of Punjab and HaryanaCRWP/5948/2021disposed of

Davinder Singh v. State Of Punjab And Others

2021-07-01Mr. Justice Jasgurpreet Singh Puri3 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT

CHANDIGARH.

CRWP-5948-2021 (O&M).

Decided on: July 1, 2021.

Davinder Singh .. Petitioner

VERSUS

State of Punjab and others .. Respondents * * *

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE JASGURPREET SINGH PURI * * * PRESENT Mr.Vivek Gupta, Advocate, for the petitioner.

JASGURPREET SINGH PURI , J. (ORAL ) The present petition has been filed under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India for issuance of an appropriate writ, direction or order especially in the nature of mandamus directing respondent Nos.2 and 3 to protect the liberty of the petitioner. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner had been repeatedly attacked since the year 2008 by some of the private respondents and at one point of time he had to be admitted to the Civil Hospital, Tanda and thereafter, also he had been repeatedly informing the police officers about being attacked but the police did not take any action against these persons. He has submitted that reason for attacking the

petitioner is that wife of the petitioner is having some relations with some of the private respondents. He has stated that the petitioner has submitted a representation (Annexure P-1) to the Senior Superintendent of Police, Hoshiarpur but no action on the same has been taken till date. Notice of motion to respondent Nos.1 to 3 only at this stage.

Mr.Randhir Singh Thind, DAG, Punjab, accepts notice on behalf of the aforesaid respondents and states that he has no objection in case the representation of the petitioner is directed to be considered by the concerned police authorities in accordance with law. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties. Keeping in view the facts and circumstances which have been stated in the present petition, I do not deem it necessary to call for the reply from the State, at this stage.

Without observing anything on the merits of the nature of controversy between the petitioner and the private respondents with regard to any subject matter whatsoever, this Court is satisfied that the matter can be disposed of at this state by giving direction only to the extent of protection of life of the petitioner. Consequently, this petition is disposed of with a direction to respondent No.2, to consider the representation (Annexure P-1) of the petitioner and to assess the threat perception of the petitioner and thereafter to take appropriate action, if so required, in accordance with law within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of copy of the order.

It is made clear that the present order pertains only to the

protection of life of the petitioner and does not in any manner reflect on the merits of the controversy inter se between the petitioner and the private respondents.

July 1, 2021, (JASGURPREET SINGH PURI) raj arora JUDGE Whether speaking / reasoned Yes / No Whether reportable Yes / No