Rajdeep Kaur v. State Of Punjab And Others

CRWP No. 9238 of 2024

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

CRWP No. 9238 of 2024 Date of Decision: 23.09.2024 Rajdeep Kaur ...PeƟƟoner

Versus

State of Punjab and others

...Respondents

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANOOP CHITKARA

Present:

Mr. Nirmaljeet Singh Sidhu, Advocate for the peƟƟoner.

Ms. SwaƟ Batra, D.A.G., Punjab.

**** ANOOP CHITKARA, J.

1.

Seeking issuance of appropriate direcƟons to the respondent- State to protect the life and liberty of the peƟƟoner from the hands of respondents No.3 to 8, the peƟƟoner has come up before this Court under ArƟcle 226 of ConsƟtuƟon of India. 2.

Counsel for the peƟƟoner submits that simply because the husband of the peƟƟoner has criminal antecedents and because of this, the aforesaid respondents are troubling her. Counsel for the peƟƟoner confines his prayer to the extent of deciding the representaƟon of the peƟƟoner (Annexure P-1) in a Ɵme bound manner. 3.

NoƟce served upon the official respondent through State counsel. The nature of order which this Court proposes to pass, there is no necessity of calling any response from the State. State counsel submits that there is no need for the peƟƟoner to fear from the respondents as they are to maintain law and order and protect people from injusƟce.

4.

State counsel submits that they would take a decision on the same within a period of three months.

5.

In view of prayer made by counsel for the peƟƟoner, respondent No.2 is directed to decide representaƟon dated 04.09.2024 (Annexure P-1) himself/herself or Jyoti Sharma 2024.09.24 10:05 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment High Court, Sector 1, Chandigarh

CRWP No. 9238 of 2024 by delegaƟng the same to any officer not below the rank of PPS, within a period of two months by passing a speaking and reasoned order and such order be also communicated to the peƟƟoner as well as his counsel on the e-mail ID provided to State counsel during the course of day.

6.

There would be no need for a cerƟfied copy of this order, and any Advocate for the PeƟƟoner and State can download this order and other relevant parƟculars from the official web page of this court and aƩest it to be a true copy. 7.

PeƟƟon is allowed with the observaƟons menƟoned above. All pending applicaƟons, if any, stand disposed.

(ANOOP CHITKARA) JUDGE 23.09.2024 JyoƟ Sharma Whether speaking/reasoned:

Yes Whether reportable:

No.

Jyoti Sharma 2024.09.24 10:05 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment High Court, Sector 1, Chandigarh