Sompal Singh Malik And ANR v. State Of Punjab And Others

CRM-M No.11368 of 2021 (O&M) -1IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRM-M No.11368 of 2021 (O&M) Date of Decision.14.01.2022 (Heard through VC) Sompal Singh Malik and another

...Petitioners

Vs State of Punjab and others

...Respondents

CORAM:HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE JAISHREE THAKUR

Present:

Mr. Mohit Kumar, Advocate for the petitioners.

Mr. R.S. Khaira, AAG, Punjab.

-.- JAISHREE THAKUR J. (ORAL) This is a petition that has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus directing respondents No.2 & 3 to protect life and liberty of petitioners at the hands of Sarita Rawal, who is arrayed respondent No.4, had allegedly duped them of `25 lakhs.

It is contended that when petitioners asked respondent No.4 to return the money, they were threatened with dire consequences. Notice of motion was issued in the said matter, pursuant to which a detailed reply by way of affidavit of Harjinder Singh, PPS, Deputy Superintendent of Police, Sub-Division Zirakpur, District SAS Nagar, Mohali has been filed on behalf of respondents No.2 & 3. As per the reply filed, an enquiry has been conducted into the said matter and ASI Jasbir Singh, enquiry officer has concluded that there is no threat to the life and liberty of the petitioners. It is submitted that the petitioners live in a gated society with two guards guarding the society gates at all times and therefore, PANKAJ KUMAR 2022.01.17 13:25 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

CRM-M No.11368 of 2021 (O&M) -2entry of all visitors in the society is allowed only after uploading complete information of the visitor. Keeping in view the security of petitioners, phone numbers of the relevant police station has been pasted outside flat/house of petitioners so that in case of any threat, they can contact the police. It is also submitted that there is a money dispute between the petitioners and respondent No.4.

In view of the reply filed by the respondents No.1 to 3, counsel for the petitioners does not press the instant petition seeking liberty to approach police in case there is any untoward incident and respondent No.4 threatens petitioners in any manner whatsoever. Ordered accordingly. The instant petition stands disposed of by giving liberty to petitioners to approach the police, should they feel that they have been threatened in any manner whatsoever by respondent No.4. (JAISHREE THAKUR) JUDGE January 14, 2022 Pankaj* Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No Whether reportable Yes/No PANKAJ KUMAR 2022.01.17 13:25 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document