← Library
High Court of Punjab and HaryanaCOCP/4149/2019disposed of

Sukhchain Singh v. Rajesh Khullar And ORS.

2022-07-27Mr. Justice Anil Kshetarpal2 pages

In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana, at Chandigarh C.O.C.P. No. 4149 of 2019 Date of Decision: 27.07.2022 Sukhchain Singh ... Petitioner(s)

Versus

Rakesh Khullar, IAS and Others ... Respondent(s) CORAM: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Anil Kshetarpal.

Present:

None for the petitioner(s).

Mr. Harsh Vardhan, Assistant Advocate General, Haryana, for the respondent No.1 to 3.

Anil Kshetarpal, J.

1.

Complaining wilful violation of the directions of the Court in Criminal Misc. No. M-36479 of 2019, decided on 02.09.2019, the petitioners have invoked the jurisdiction of this Court under Section 10 and 11 read with Section 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971. The operative part of the order dated 02.09.2019 reads as under:- "Heard.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has confined his submission only for direction to respondent no. 2Superintendent of Police to provide protection to life and liberty of petitioner so that he may go to Sirsa to avail the legal remedy with regard to allegations levelled by him in the representation (Annexure P-3) made to Superintendent of Police, Sirsa.

DEEPAK KUMAR BHARDWAJ 2022.08.01 11:04 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

C.O.C.P. No. 4149 of 2019 In view of submission of learned counsel for the petitioner, this petition is disposed of with direction to respondent no. 2-Superintendent of Police, Sirsa to look into the grievance of petitioner regarding threat to his life and liberty, verify the same and take appropriate action in accordance with law on receipt of copy of this order". 2.

Mr. Harsh Vardhan, Assistant Advocate General, Haryana, appearing for the respondent No.1 to 3, on the instructions from Mr. Jagpal Singh, Assistant Sub Inspector, Police Station Bara Gudha, District Sirsa, submits that the Station House Office, Police Station Bara Gudha, District Sirsa, has inquired into the matter and found that the petitioner has neither performed marriage with Gagandeep Kaur nor he had a live-in relationship with her.

3.

In view of the aforesaid facts, no further order is required to be passed. Hence, the present petition is disposed of. (Anil Kshetarpal) Judge July 27, 2022 "DK"

Whether speaking/reasoned :Yes/No Whether reportable : Yes/No DEEPAK KUMAR BHARDWAJ 2022.08.01 11:04 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document