Ashok Kumar v. State Of Haryana And Others

CRM-M-59607-2024

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA

AT CHANDIGARH CRM-M No.59607 of 2024 (O&M) Date of Decision: 28.11.2024 Ashok Kumar

...Petitioner

Versus

State of Haryana and Others

...Respondents

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANOOP CHITKARA

Present:

Mr. Lakshay Bajaj, Advocate (Through VC) for the petitioner.

Mr. Vikrant Pamboo, Sr. DAG, Haryana.

**** ANOOP CHITKARA, J.

Seeking directions to official respondents i.e. respondent Nos.1 to 3 to decide representations (Annexures P-1 to P-3), petitioner, claiming to be an aggrieved person, has come up before this Court under Section 528 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS).

2.

Counsel for the petitioner submits that he is not pressing for any action on his pending representations and would be contented and satisfied if he be given liberty to make fresh representation and the same 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 the petitioner represent afresh to the concerned Inspector General of Police, within two weeks from today. If the petitioner files a representation with in the abovementioned time period of two weeks, then, the same shall be decided by the concerned Inspector General of Police, within two months, either herself or by authorizing and delegating it to any officer holding IPS cadre. It is clarified that such order must be a reasoned order, and the same be communicated to the representationists without delay. Sonia Puri 2024.11.29 11:06 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

CRM-M-59607-2024 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 if any defamatory allegations are made in the representation then it shall be permissible for the concerned Officer to proceed against the petitioner. It is also clarified that there is no adjudication on merits and this order shall not come in the way if the interrogation of the petitioner is required in any cognizable case. It is further 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 28.11.2024 Sonia Puri Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No Whether reportable:

Yes/No.

Sonia Puri 2024.11.29 11:06 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document