Krishan Lal v. State Of Punjab And Others

CRM-M No.39244 of 2024 -1IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH ***** CRM-M No.39244 of 2024 Date of decision : 10.11.2025 Krishan Lal .............Petitioner

Versus

State of Punjab and others .......Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUMEET GOEL Present: Mr. Deepak Arora, Advocate, for the petitioner Ms. Aiman J. Chishti, AAG, Punjab Mr. Rahat Bir Singh Mann, Advocate, for respondent no.4 None for respondent no.5 --- SUMEET GOEL, J. (ORAL) 1.

The substantive prayer made in the petition reads thus: 'In view of the submissions made above, it is, therefore, respectfully prayed that the present petition may kindly be allowed and appropriate directions may kindly be issued to respondent No. 2 to 4 to take appropriate action in matter in relation to unnecessary and undue victimization/harassment as being caused to the petitioner at the hands of respondent no. 5 who is bent on implicating the petitioner in a false and frivolous matter and with that intent has filed false and frivolous complaints to the police authorities and respondent no. 3 and 4 on aforesaid false complaints being made are unduly calling the petitioner to the police station without following the due procedure as incorporated U/s 160 Cr.P.C. and therefore, directions are liable to be issued to respondent no. 3 and 4 in this regard.

Any other relief, order or direction which this Hon'ble High Court may deem fit and proper under the facts and circumstances of the case.' 2.

Learned State counsel has filed reply dated 17.9.2024, relevant ASHWANI KUMAR 2025.11.10 17:52 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

CRM-M No.39244 of 2024 -2whereof reads thus: '5.

That the above-said complaint was enquired by ASI Sukhwinder pal Singh, Incharge of Police Post Dhuleta and during the course of enquiry, the complainant and the present petitioner arrived at a compromise and thus, ASI Sukhwinder pal Singh sent his report to the SHO of Police Station Goraya, Jalandhar recommending therein to consign the complaint as no further action was required on the same. 6.

That the SHO of Police Station Goraya further submitted his report to the then Deputy Superintendent of Police, Sub-Division Phillaur recommending therein to consign the complainant and the said report was got approved. Therefore, no further action was taken on the said complaint.

3.

Faced with the above, learned counsel for the petitioner seeks to withdraw the present petition at this stage with liberty to file afresh, in case cause of action so ensues.

4.

Ordered accordingly.

(SUMEET GOEL) JUDGE 10.11.2025 Ashwanii Whether speaking/reasoned:

Yes/No Whether reportable:

Yes/No ASHWANI KUMAR 2025.11.10 17:52 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document