Sukhi Devi v. State Of Punjab And ORS

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA

AT CHANDIGARH CRWP-10677-2020(O&M) Date of decision : 22.12.2020 Sukhi Devi ... Petitioner(s)

Versus

State of Punjab and others ... Respondent(s)

CORAM:

HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ALKA SARIN

Present:

Mr. Mohit Sadana, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. V.G. Jauhar, Sr. DAG, Punjab.

**** ALKA SARIN, J. (ORAL) Heard through video conferencing.

The present criminal writ petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus directing respondent Nos.2 and 3 to protect the life and liberty of the petitioner at the hands of respondent Nos.4 to 21. Learned counsel for the petitioner would contend that the petitioner, who is 34 years of age, was married to respondent No.4 in the year 2006. The husband of the petitioner i.e. respondent No.4 is a drug addict and has been ill-treating the petitioner. The petitioner had left her matrimonial home and went to her parental home where her brothers i.e. respondent Nos.20 and 21 asked her to go back to her matrimonial home. Learned counsel for the petitioner would further contend that respondent Nos.4 to 18 are the husband and his relatives and respondent Nos.

19 to 21 are her own father and brothers and she apprehends danger to her life and liberty at the hands of all the private respondent Nos.4 to 21 and in this regard, she has also sent a representation dated 10.12.2020 (Annexure P-1) to respondent No.2 for providing adequate security. However, no action has been taken till date. YOGESH SHARMA 2020.12.

CRWP-10677-2020(O&M) -2The counsel for the petitioner would further contend that at this stage, the petitioner would be satisfied, if the directions are issued to respondent No.2 to decide her said representation in a time-bound manner in accordance with law.

Notice of motion.

On the asking of the Court, Mr. V.G. Jauhar, Sr. DAG, Punjab has joined the session through video conferencing and accepts notice on behalf of the respondent(s)-State. Since the matter is not being decided on merits, the service on other respondents is dispensed with. Heard learned counsel for the parties.

Without expressing any opinion with regard to the veracity of the contents of the petition and the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner, the present petition is disposed off with a direction to the Senior Superintendent of Police, Mansa, District Mansa (respondent No.2) to decide the representation dated 10.12.2020 (Annexure P-1) and take necessary action in accordance with law. It is, however, made clear that this order shall not, in any manner, be construed as an expression of opinion on the veracity of the contents of the present petition and submissions raised on behalf of the petitioner and shall have no effect on any other civil or criminal proceedings, if any, instituted/pending against her. ( ALKA SARIN ) JUDGE 22.12.2020 Yogesh Sharma NOTE: Whether speaking/non-speaking: Speaking Whether reportable: YES/NO YOGESH SHARMA 2020.12.23 09:46 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document