Raghav Ahuja v. State Of Punjab And Others

CRM-M-52390-2024

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA

AT CHANDIGARH CRM-M No.52390 of 2024 (O&M) Date of Decision: 22.10.2024 Raghav Ahuja

...Petitioner

Versus

State of Punjab and Others

...Respondents

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANOOP CHITKARA

Present:

Mr. Ashwani Kumar Katter, Advocate for Mr. L. M. Gulati, Advocate for the petitioner.

Ms. Swati Batra, DAG, Punjab.

**** ANOOP CHITKARA, J.

Seeking directions to official respondents i.e. respondent Nos.3 to 4 to provide police security for constructing boundary wall over the land of the petitioner as per directions issued by respondent No.2-District Magistrate and further seeking direction to respondent Nos.2 and 3 to decide the representation made by petitioner's grandfather, the petitioner has come up before this Court under Section 482, Cr.P.C., 1973. 2.

Counsel for the petitioner submits that he would be contended and satisfied if his representation (Annexure P-5) which is pending with the official respondents is decided in a time bound manner by passing a speaking order. 3.

Notice served upon the official respondents through the State counsel. Given the nature of the order that this Court proposes to pass, neither the response of official respondents nor the issuance of notices to the private respondents is required. 4.

Let respondent No.2 decide the representation (Annexure P-2) within a period of 02 months, himself/ herself. It is clarified that such order must be a reasoned order, and the same be communicated to the representationist(s) as well as to his counsel without delay through their email IDs so provided by the counsel for the petitioner during the course of the day.

Sonia Puri 2024.10.25 12:20 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

CRM-M-52390-2024 5.

Liberty reserved to the petitioner to file fresh petition or to take other legal remedies in accordance with the law.

6.

It is clarified that there is no adjudication on merits. It is further clarified that this order shall not come in the way if the interrogation of the petitioner is required in any cognizable case. It is also clarified that this order shall not be construed as order of stay of arrest of the petitioner in any case.

7.

There would be no need for a certified copy of this order, and any Advocate for the Petitioner and State can download this order and other relevant particulars from the official web page of this court and attest it to be a true copy. The concerned officer can also verify its authenticity and may download and use the downloaded copy for immediate use.

Petition is allowed to the extent mentioned above. All pending applications, if any, stand disposed of.

(ANOOP CHITKARA) JUDGE 22.10.2024 Sonia Puri Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No Whether reportable:

Yes/No.

Sonia Puri 2024.10.25 12:20 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document