Anju Kumari And Another v. State Of Punjab And ORS.

CRM-M-39733-2025
 

IN THE PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT

AT CHANDIGARH CRM-M-39733-2025 Decided on:02.09.2025 Anju Kumari and another .... Petitioners versus State of Punjab and others .... Respondents

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD S. BHARDWAJ

Present:

Mr. Rakesh Kumar, Advocate for the petitioners.

Mr. I.P.S.Sabherwal, DAG, Punjab.

**** Vinod S. Bhardwaj, J.(Oral) Present petition has been filed under Section 528 of BNSS for issuance of direction to respondents No.2 and 3 to initiate action against respondent No.4 and other police officials, who are allegedly not performing their duties properly.

2.

Learned counsel for the petitioners contends that both the petitioners are major and they had earlier approached this Court seeking protection of their life and liberty being in a live-in-relationship. The said petition was allowed vide order dated 22.05.2025 (Annexure P-3) where direction was issued to the Sr. Superintendent of Police, Gurdaspur to ensure the protection of their life and liberty. Learned counsel contends that when the petitioners went to local police, they were assured protection of their life and liberty, however, no steps were taken. In the meanwhile, private respondents have again started harassing the petitioners, who are residing happily with each other. A call was thus, made by the petitioners to the official respondents intimating them of the threat being extended by the private respondents and also apprising them that the petitioners may be SONIA BURA 2025.09.04 17:10 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

CRM-M-39733-2025 attacked, however, it is argued that no concrete steps were taken to ensure their safety.

3.

Short reply by way of an affidavit of Sanjeev Kumar, Deputy Superintendent of Police, Sub Division City Batala, Police District Batala District Gurdaspur filed in Court today, is taken on record subject to all just exceptions. As per the reply, there is no threat to life and liberty of the petitioners and that a mere phone call by any of the family members cannot be ipso facto perceived as an extension of threat to the petitioners. Besides this, statement of private respondents have already been recorded wherein they have stated that they are not extending threats to anyone. 4.

In view of the above, the present petition is disposed of as having been rendered infructuous.

02.09.2025 (VINOD S. BHARDWAJ) sonia JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned?

Yes/No Whether reportable?

Yes/No SONIA BURA 2025.09.04 17:10 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document