Sukhdev Singh v. State Of Punjab And Another

-1IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision.17.02.2021 (HEARD THROUGH VC) Sukhdev Singh

...Petitioner

Vs State of Punjab and another

...Respondent

2.

CRWP No.7749 of 2020 Sukhdev Singh

...Petitioner

Vs State of Punjab and others

...Respondents

CORAM:HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE JAISHREE THAKUR

Present:

Mr. Lalit Pathak, Advocate for the petitioner.

Ms. Rashmi Attri, DAG, Punjab.

Ms. Promila Nain, Advocate for respondent No.5 in CRWP No.7749 of 2020.

-.- JAISHREE THAKUR J. (ORAL) CRM-W No.172 of 2021 in CRWP No.7749 of 2020 Application is allowed.

Replication filed by the petitioner to the reply filed on behalf of respondents No.1 to 3 and 5 along with Annexures P-6 to P-9 is taken on record.

CRM No.27703 of 2020 Application is allowed.

Annexures P-2 to P-7 are taken on record, subject to all just

-2exceptions.

Main cases This order of mine shall dispose of two petitions i.e. CRWP No.7749 of 2020 and CRM-M No.35549 of 2020.

In CRWP No.7749 of 2020, the petitioner has asked for a writ to be issued directing the official respondents to protect the life and liberty of the petitioner as well as for issuance of a writ to be issued directing respondent No.2 not to take any cognizance on the report if submitted by respondent No.3 on a complaint made by respondent No.5 on the ground that respondent No.3 is not a competent person to hold the enquiry. In CRM-M No.35549 of 2020, the petitioner has sought a direction to be issued to respondent No.2 to take an appropriate action on the representation dated 25.09.2029 moved by him regarding cheating and fraud having been committed upon him by Karan Land & Developers, who are none other than the private respondents in Crl. Writ Petition No.7749 of 2020.

Replies have been filed on behalf of the respondent-State as well as by respondent No.5.

Counsel appearing for the respondent-State would rely upon para No.1 of the reply wherein it has been stated that the Commissioner of Police, Ludhiana has marked the complaint of respondent No.5 to the Joint Commissioner of Police, Rural Ludhiana for proper investigation. Mr. Pathak, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner herein would contend that he has no objection in case the said enquiry continues, however, submits that his representation dated 25.09.2020 be also placed before the same officer seized of the complaint filed by respondent No.5.

-3In view of the consensus arrived at between the parties, that the complaint and the representation should be decided by the Joint Commissioner, Rural, this Court deems it appropriate to direct the said officer to complete the enquiry in both the complaint and the representation dated 25.09.2020 as expeditiously as possible and preferably within a period of four months, after giving both parties due opportunity to represent themselves.

Consequently, both the petitions are disposed of with the aforesaid directions.

(JAISHREE THAKUR) JUDGE February 17, 2021 Pankaj* Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No Whether reportable Yes/No