High Court of Punjab and HaryanaCRM-M/48329/2019dismissed

Harinder Kaur v. State Of Punjab And Others

2019-11-14Mr. Justice Harnaresh Singh Gill2 pages

CRM-M No. 48329 of 2019 -1In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh CRM-M No. 48329 of 2019 Date of Decision: 14.11.2019 Harinder Kaur ......Petitioner

Versus

State of Punjab and others ......Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARNARESH SINGH GILL

Present:

Mr. Sunil Agnihotri, Advocate for the petitioner.

**** HARNARESH SINGH GILL , J. (ORAL) This is a petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for issuance of direction to respondent No. 2 to protect the life and liberty of the petitioner and further for issuance of direction to respondent No. 2 not to allow respondent No. 4 to interfere with the life and liberty of the petitioner. Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the petitioner is the widow whose husband was expired way-back on 7.11.2015 and her son is 75% disabled. The petitioner is owner of 13 kanals and 19 marlas of land and she along with her son are dependent on the income from the said land.

It is further argued that the petitioner requested respondent No. 4 to stop threatening her and to start the supply of water from the electric motor but he flatly refused to do so and has been pressurizing her to transfer 13 kanals and 9 marlas of land in his favour at a meagre price. In this regard, the petitioner has made a complaint dated 16.10.2019 to SHO, GURPREET SINGH 2019.11.16 16:29 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document chandigarh Samrala and also personally visited the police station but no action has been

CRM-M No. 48329 of 2019 -2taken.

I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. Respondent No. 4 is not a stranger because he is the son of the brother-in-law (jeth) of the petitioner. Even as per the jamabandi for the year 2016-2017 (Annexure P-3), the land in question is joint. The dispute is regarding the supply of water through the tubewell which is situated in the joint land.

I do not think that the police can take any action on the complaint of the petitioner when the partition of the land has not been made. Regarding partition, the petitioner has not even moved any application before the revenue authorities.

Keeping in view the above, no case for issuance of direction is made out.

The petition is dismissed.

(HARNARESH SINGH GILL) JUDGE November 14, 2019 Gurpreet Whether speaking/reasoned :

Yes/No Whether reportable :

Yes/No GURPREET SINGH 2019.11.16 16:29 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document chandigarh