Kuldip Kaur And ORS v. State Of Punjab And ORS
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH 102) Date of Decision: 27.01.2021 CRWP no.9561 of 2020 (O&M) Kuldip Kaur and others
...Petitioners
Versus
State of Punjab and others
...Respondents
2) CRWP no.8787 of 2020 (O&M) Kuldip Kaur
...Petitioner
Versus
State of Punjab
...Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMOL RATTAN SINGH Present:- Mr. Bikramjit Aroura, Advocate, for the petitioners. Mr. Sukhbeer Singh, AAG, Punjab *** Amol Rattan Singh, J. (Oral)
By CRWP no.9561 of 2020, the petitioners seek protection of life and liberty at the hands of the District Police, Tarn Taran, with a further prayer made that there would not be any infringement of human rights etc. on the pretext of constant threats of false implication (in criminal cases). They have also sought compensation from respondents no.1 to 3, for the alleged denial of their constitutional rights under Article 21 of the Constitution of India by detention/confinement at the CIA Staff office at Tarn Taran from October 05/06, 2020 to October 09, 2020, with them having been allegedly beaten up, threatened and harassed etc. A complaint is also stated to have been sent to the Secretariat of hon'ble the Chief Justice by the petitioner, Kuldip Kaur, which was ordered to be treated as CRWP no8787 of 2020, essentially on the same subject.
102/2 -2On 18.11.2020, the following order had been passed in CRWP no.9561 of 2020:- All the cases listed today have been taken up for hearing by way of video conferencing because of the situation existing due to the Covid-19 pandemic.
Notice of motion at this stage is issued to respondents nos.1 to 3 and 5 only, with Mr. Sandeep Singh Deol, learned DAG, Punjab, accepting notice on their behalf, at the asking of the court. A copy of the petition be e-mailed to him by the learned counsel for the petitioner today itself.
The SSP, Tarn Taran, is directed to look at the footage of all entry and exit points of Police Station City, Tarn Taran and the CIA Staff, Tarn Taran, from 8.00 p.m. on 05.10.2020 till 12 midnight of 09/10.10.2020, and to state on his own affidavit as to whether any of the petitioners is seen to be brought to the said police station/CIA staff premises, or is seen to be leaving either of the two premises during that period; and if so, what explanation there is for them being brought there.
A copy of the CCTV footage for the said period shall also be annexed with the affidavit to be filed.
It needs to be observed here that earlier also, upon an SHO of a police station (in another case), having stated that the video recording is only for a limited period, thereafter upon the ADGP concerned having been directed by this court to file an affidavit, such affidavit was filed, stating that in fact the storage capacity of all such CCTV recordings was in terabytes (TB) and therefore action had in fact been initiated against the SHO concerned, for making a false statement.
Hence, the SSP, Tarn Taran, will keep in mind that fact while filing his affidavit, annexing therewith the said footage. Adjourned to 21.12.2020. Thereafter, an affidavit of the SSP, Tarn Taran, dated 11.01.2021, having been filed, counsel for the petitioners had sought an adjournment on 13.01.2021.
102/2 -3Today CRM-W-90-2021 has been filed, with the petitioners seeking to withdraw both the petitions, and with the learned counsel submitting that in view of the reply filed by the respondents in CRWP no.8787 of 2020, to the effect that petitioner no.4 is not required by the police in the context of any criminal case, presently at least the petitioners have no further grievance. On a specific query put to learned counsel for the petitioners, he submits that in view of the fact that the SSPs' reply states that the footage of the CCTV camera installed at the Police Station and CIA Staff office before 20.10.2020 is not available, the petitioners do not also press for any compensation. That being so, without making any comment on the correctness or otherwise of the contentions raised in the petitions, the application (CRM-W-90-2021) is allowed, with CRWP no.9561 of 2020, as also CRWP no.8787 of 2020, ordered to be dismissed, both having been withdrawn by the petitioners. A copy of this order be placed on the file of the other connected matter too.