Tanu And Another v. State Of Haryana And Others

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA

AT CHANDIGARH Date of decision: 16.06.2026 TANU AND ANOTHER ......Petitioner

VERSUS

STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS .......Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD S. BHARDWAJ ***** Present: - Mr. Parveen Kumar, Advocate for the petitioner.

***** VINOD S. BHARDWAJ, J. (Oral) The present petition has been filed for seeking directions to the respondents No.1 to 3 to protect the life and liberty of the petitioner No.1 Tanu as well as Petitioner No.2-Vinay Pratap who are undisputedly residents of Meerut (U.P.) 2.

This Court, noticed that there was no convincing document as would reflect that the petitioners are ordinary residents of Kurukshetra and hence would be entitled to seek protection by invoking the territorial jurisdiction of this Court. Hence, vide order dated 02.06.2026 i.e. on the date of preliminary hearing, this Court directed Counsel for the petitioner to place documents on record to show that they have been residing at the address

-2mentioned in the petition i.e. House No. 25, Comrede Colony, Sirsala Road, District Kurukshetra.

3.

In compliance thereto, a rent deed dated 02.06.2026 has been handed over today in Court. Para No.1 of the aforesaid rent deed reads thus:- "The First Party owns a property known as 'Saini PG Boys & Girls' (House No. 25, Comrade Vdia Colony, Sirsa Road, District Kurukshetra), which has been rented out to the Second Party at a monthly rent of ₹6,000 for the period from 02.05.2026 to 01.06.2026; in accordance with the terms and conditions, the Second Party has placed their belongings in the room."

4.

It is evident from a perusal of the above that even though the said rent deed was executed on 02.06.2026, the period of lease was from 02.05.2026 to 01.06.2026 and that the said period had already come to an end as on the date when the deed was executed. It is further apparent that the owner/landlord is actually running a paying guest facility in the aforesaid house.

5.

It is thus apparent that the documents have been prepared solely to invoke the jurisdiction of this Court knowing fully well that there is a falsity in the execution of the said documents and that the period of rent had already come to an end as on the date when the petition came up for hearing before this Court. A copy of the rent deed is retained on the Court record while the original rent deed which has been handed over by the Counsel for the petitioner to this Court is ordered to be given to the State Counsel for directing an enquiry into the execution of the said document and in the event the averments contained therein are found to be false, to register a case and carry out further proceedings in accordance with law.

-36.

The present petition is thus an apparent abuse of the process of law and is consequently dismissed at this stage with a cost of Rs. 20,000/- to be deposited with "Post Graduate Institute of Medical Education & Research" (PGIMER), Chandigarh within a period of one month of receipt of certified copy of this order.

(VINOD S. BHARDWAJ) JUNE 16, 2026 JUDGE Vishal Sharma Whether speaking/reasoned :

Yes/No Whether Reportable :

Yes/No