Manjit Kaur v. State Of Punjab And ORS

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA

AT CHANDIGARH

Reserved on: 13.12.2024

Pronounced on: 19.12.2024 Manjit Kaur ...PeƟƟoner

Versus

State of Punjab and others

...Respondents

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANOOP CHITKARA

Present:

Mr. Rishu Mahajan, Advocate for the peƟƟoner.

Mr. Akshay Kumar, A.A.G., Punjab.

**** ANOOP CHITKARA, J.

1.

Apprehending threat at the hands of respondents No.3 to 5, the peƟƟoner has come up before this Court seeking writ in the nature of mandamus direcƟng the Punjab Police to protect her life and of her family members. In addiƟon to this relief, peƟƟoner had also sought a protecƟon to comply with provisions of SecƟon 160 CrPC before calling the peƟƟoner to police staƟon and to decide her representaƟon Annexure P-1.

2.

PeƟƟoner's claim is that on 13.08.2024, respondents No.4 and 5 who are police officials in civil dress entered her house. PeƟƟoner alleged that she was not at home and her elder daughter was present at home. She told them that her parents were not present but they did not listen and harassed her daughter and forcibly entered the house and conducted illegal search and scaƩered the household arƟcles and they also took away six gold rings kept in the cupboard and Rs.50,000/- cash lying in the cupboard. PeƟƟoner also stated that she received a call from one Sewak Singh who claimed that he is speaking from police staƟon and would return the rings and other material and she had recorded such call and annexed such call on CD.

The concerned Superintendent of Police has filed para wise reply to the peƟƟon in which it is menƟoned that they had received a representaƟon in which she had menƟoned about illegal entry of police officials, theŌ of Rs.50,000/- and gold rings. On this, representaƟon was marked to DySP to conduct detailed inquiry. The concerned DySP submiƩed report dated 22.10.2024 which reads as follows:- "4.

That the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Sub-Division AƩari, District Amritsar (Rural), submiƩed his report no. 761-5A dated

22.10.2024.

That the following points have come on record in the inquiry conducted by the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Sub-Division AƩari, which are menƟoned herein for the kind perusal of this Hon'ble Court: i.

That the complainant/peƟƟoner Manjit Kaur was served with various parwanas/noƟces having No. 122-5E dated 11.09.2024, 129-5E dated 20.09.2024 and 134-5E dated 30.09.2024 to come present before the inquiry officer and get her statement recorded in regard to the representaƟon submiƩed by her. That all these parwanas/noƟces were duly noted by the complainant/peƟƟoner in the presence of her father-inlaw namely Parkash Singh. That it is perƟnent to menƟon here that the complainant/peƟƟoner did not come present before the inquiry officer to get her statement recorded on any of the dates given by the police authority, she was asked to come present.

ii.

That the complainant/peƟƟoner Manjit Kaur came present before the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Sub-Division AƩari on 19.10.2024, and got her statement recorded whereby she stated that she has not brought any evidence which supports the allegaƟons being leveled by her in the representaƟon in regard to the stealing of Rs.50,000/- and gold arƟcles aŌer entering forcefully in her house. That she further stated that her husband has gone outside for some work and she will come present again along with the evidence which support the allegaƟons and she will also bring along the paint labor, who were working in their house on the alleged date of occurrence.

iii.

That it has come on record that the complainant/peƟƟoner gave a wrong statement before the inquiry officer when she stated that her husband had gone out for some work because it was found that her husband Labh Singh is an accused in FIR No. 141 dated 09.10.2024 under SecƟon 21/61/85 NDPS Act Police StaƟon Chaƫwind, District Amritsar (Rural) and is currently in judicial custody and lodged at Central Jail, Amritsar. Thus, this fact in itself brought on record the mala-fide intenƟon of complainant, while leveling wrong allegaƟons on the officials. However, even aŌer giving appropriate opportuniƟes she failed to bring on record any evidence which proved the allegaƟons.

iv.

That it is perƟnent to menƟon here that it has come on record during the inquiry that the complainant's husband Labh Singh and both sons namely Jagraj Singh @ Jago and Akashdeep Singh @ Kalia are also an accused in 7 other FIRs. The details of all these FIRs are menƟoned herein below for the kind perusal of this Hon'ble Court:- • FIR No. 141 dated 09.10.2024 under SecƟon 21/61/85 NDPS Act registered at Police StaƟon Chaƫwind, District Amritsar (Rural).  FIR No. 84 dated 23.05.2020 under SecƟon 61-1-14 Excise Act registered at Police StaƟon Chaƫwind, District Amritsar (Rural). • FIR No. 128 dated 09.09.2023 under SecƟon 323, 160, 341, 506, 148, 149 IPC and SecƟon 21, 22, 29/61/85 NDPS Act registered at Police StaƟon Chaƫwind, District Amritsar (Rural).

 FIR No. 181 dated 06.08.2020 under SecƟon 61-1-14 Excise Act registered at Police StaƟon Chaƫwind, District Amritsar (Rural).  FIR No. 53 dated 04.06.2017 under SecƟon 61-1-14 Excise Act registered at Police StaƟon Chaƫwind, District Amritsar (Rural).  FIR No. 46 dated 02.04.2020 under SecƟon 188 IPC registered at Police StaƟon Chaƫwind, District Amritsar (Rural).  FIR No. 157 dated 10.11.2012 under SecƟon 61-1-14 Excise Act registered at Police StaƟon Chaƫwind, District Amritsar (Rural).

It is clear from the criminal record that Manjit Kaur and her family are habitual offenders and are involved in the illicit trade of narcoƟc substances.

v.

That the statement of the 2 police personnel namely Ct. Kuljinder Singh 1793/ASR-R and PHG Palwinder Singh 2606/3 BaƩalion Amritsar, were also recorded whereby they stated that a Cordon and Search OperaƟon (CASO), was being carried out on the direcƟons of the Director General of Police, Punjab and Senior Superintendent of Police, District Amritsar (Rural). In this regard, raids were being conducted at the houses of habitual fenders. On 13.08.2024, at around 04:00PM, when the police entered their house, they saw that 2 painters were working and 2 females and 1 child were present in the house and the police officials asked for Jagraj Singh @ Jago and they stated that Jagraj Singh is not at home. ThereaŌer, the police officials did not enter into the house or any room and went back from outside itself.

5.

That aŌer conducƟng the detailed inquiry the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Sub-Division AƩari, District Amritsar (Rural), submiƩed his final report having no. 761-5A dated 22.10.2024, in which it was stated that no evidence has come on record which proves that the allegaƟons leveled by the peƟƟoner/complainant and there are no merits in the same. The said officer further stated that the complainant/peƟƟoner is filing false and frivolous complaints to unnecessarily harass the police officials. Therefore, it was recommended that the representaƟon No. 1734-PP dated 09.09.2024 be consigned to the record room.

That further in regard to the audio recording report from StaƟon House Officer, Police StaƟon Chaƫwind was obtained as per which on the perusal of the audio recording, nothing material came on record in regard to the allegaƟons leveled by the peƟƟoner.

Thus, the report dated 23.10.2024 was approved by the deponent on 08.11.2024, and the representaƟon was consigned to the record room."

3.

PeƟƟoner filed counter to the reply and stated that the police officials are trying to mis-lead this Court. She was inƟmated and forced to sign blank papers. She also annexed affidavit of one electrician as Annexure P-3. PeƟƟoner further submiƩed that the police officials had tried to implicate enƟre family in false case. An analysis of above said submissions would lead to the following outcome. Firstly regarding protecƟon, there is no apparent threat to the peƟƟoner and her family members at the hands of police. It is not a case of protecƟon. Regarding the decision on representaƟon, the prayer has rendered infructuous because invesƟgaƟon has already been conducted by DySP which is extracted above. Regarding third prayer, as and when peƟƟoner is called, compliance of SecƟon 160 CrPC be made. Needless to say that whenever an inquiry is conducted, then the police is duty bound to follow provisions of SecƟon 160 CrPC, 179 BNSS and 175 CrPC and 195 BNSS.

4.

Given above, it is clarified that in case peƟƟoner is called, then due compliance shall be made unless she is an accused in FIR.

5.

PeƟƟon is disposed of. Regarding theŌ, it is always open for the peƟƟoner to file appropriate complaint in the concerned police staƟon and in case of alternaƟve approach the concerned JMIC under SecƟon 175 of BNSS. All pending applicaƟons, if any, stand disposed.

(ANOOP CHITKARA) JUDGE 19.12.2024 JyoƟ Sharma Whether speaking/reasoned:

Yes Whether reportable:

No.