Dr Ak Dhindsa Alias Dr Amir Kaur Dhindsa Through Her Special Power Of Attorney Anil Bakshi v. State Of Punjab And Others
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH.
Sr. No.113 Case No. : CRM-M-30176-2025 Decided On : November 12, 2025 Dr. A. K. Dhindsa alias Dr. Amir Kaur Dhindsa ....
Petitioner vs.
State of Punjab and others ....
Respondents CORAM :
HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SUKHVINDER KAUR.
* * * Present :
Mr. Paramveer Singh, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr. P. S. Pandher, AAG, Punjab.
Mr. Vibhor Bansal, Senior Panel Counsel with Mr. Ishank Bansal, Advocate for respondents no.2, 5 to 8.
* * * SUKHVINDER KAUR , J.
:
Prayer in the present petition, filed under Section 528 the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023, is for issuance of order or direction to the official respondents, for proper and fair investigation in representation dated 19.03.2025 (Annexure P-5), sent by the petitioner to respondent no.2, for taking action against the private respondents, in accordance with law, as the private respondents had illegally demolished the petitioner's bungalow despite the fact that she was the owner in the possession of the same.
Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner was aggrieved by inaction against the private respondents, as they had allegedly demolished
her Bungalow No.45, Ranjit Road, Jalandhar Cantt, Punjab. She moved a representation dated 19.03.2025 to respondent no.2. Apart from this representation, the petitioner had also filed a Civil Suit for possession of the aforesaid property, before the Court of Civil Judge (Senior Division), Jalandhar, which is still pending.
Reiterating all the aforesaid facts, learned counsel for the petitioner contended that official respondents be directed for taking action against the private respondents.
On the other hand, learned State counsel, controverting the facts mentioned in the petition, filed Status Report on behalf of official respondent - State of Punjab and while referring to the Status Report, prayed that no further action is required in the matter as the petitioner had already availed the remedies available to her.
Heard.
As per the Status Report placed on record, the allegations raised by the petitioner pertained to ownership and possession of immovable property i.e. Bungalow No.45, Ranjit Road, Jalandhar Cantt, Punjab. The petitioner herself had already instituted a Civil Suit for possession of the said property before learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Jalandhar, in which notices had already been issued to the opposite parties. Thus, the petitioner had already initiated civil litigation for possession of the aforesaid property and as such, the matter is sub-judice before the competent Civil Court. In State of Haryana vs. Bhajan Lal - 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335, it has been held that where the allegations made in
the complaint predominantly disclose a civil dispute, the criminal process should not be allowed to be used as an instrument of harassment. It has also been alleged in the Status Report that the suit has been filed by the petitioner through her Attorney Anil Bakshi, which itself demonstrates that the matter does not involve any immediate criminal urgency but rather involves issues of ownership and possession. It has further been alleged that as per the allegations, in the first week of March 2025, Attorney of the petitioner visited Jalandhar and he found that the Bungalow in question had been demolished and dismantled. Several household articles were misappropriated and destroyed.
It has been alleged that these are all disputed questions of fact which require detailed inquiry and trial and cannot be adjudicated upon in the present proceedings. The petitioner has alleged that her complaints have not been inquired into by the official respondents. However, in para 9 of the Status Report, it has been mentioned that the record reflects that Complaint No.701-PTM dated 28.04.2025 was duly marked to the Assistant Commissioner of Police, Crime Against Women (CAW) Cell, for inquiry. Similarly, Complaint No.334-DGP dated 28.05.2025 was also diarized in the office of the Director General of Police, Punjab and was marked to the same ACP, CAW Cell, for necessary action. It has been specifically mentioned that both complaints are pending inquiry and necessary proceedings shall be undertaken strictly in accordance with law.
Thus, when as per the Status Report, the petitioner has already invoked the civil remedy and matter is already sub-judice before the
Civil Court and her complaints are also simultaneously under inquiry before the competent Authorities, then no further order is required to be passed in the present petition.
The present petition stands disposed of accordingly. November 12, 2025 (SUKHVINDER KAUR) monika JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned ?
Yes/No.
Whether reportable ?
Yes/No.