Randeep Kaur @ Rani v. State Of Punjab And Others

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT

CHANDIGARH CRWP-13452-2025 Date of Decision:-27.02.2026 RANDEEP KAUR @ RANI ......PETITIONER VS.

STATE OF PUNJAB AND OTHERS .....RESPONDENTS CORAM:-HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JASJIT SINGH BEDI

Present:

Mr. G. S. Sandhu, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. M.S. Toor, AAG Punjab.

(THROUGH VIDEO CONFERENCING) **** JASJIT SINGH BEDI , J.(ORAL ) 1.

The prayer in the present petition filed under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India is for issuance of a writ in the nature of Mandmus directing official respondents to protect life and liberty of the petitioner as she apprehends danger at the hands of private respondent Nos.5 to 11.

2.

The learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner's father-in-law was contesting Zila Parishad Elections. The private respondents beat her up on 06.12.2025. Despite moving representations to the investigating agency to take action against the private respondents, no action has been taken against them. Therefore, the petitioner be provided security and inquiry of the complaint be conducted by an SIT of senior officers from outside the jurisdiction of District Amritsar.

KUSUM 2026.03.01 12:56 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document PHHC Chandigarh

CRWP-13452-2025 -23.

The learned counsel for the State has filed a reply dated 15.01.2026 by way of an affidavit, which is taken on record. While referring to the said reply, he contends that the petitioner has not appeared before the local police or any other senior officer to record her statement nor has she presented any medical evidence of her injuries. He therefore, prays that the present petition is liable to be dismissed. 4.

I have heard learned counsel for the parties. 5.

The MLR handed over in Court today, would reveal that though the petitioner has suffered injuries, there is no evidence that she suffered grievous injuries in the occurrence. Therefore, it cannot be a case where a cognizable offence is made out. Therefore, even if the petitioner did approach the investigating agency, its hands would have been tied in view of the non-cognizable nature of the offence. 6.

In view of the above, I find no merit in the present petition and the same stands dismissed.

7.

Needless to say, the petitioner is at liberty to avail her remedies in accordance with law.

8.

All the pending miscellaneous applications, if any, stand disposed of.

(JASJIT SINGH BEDI) 27.02.2026 JUDGE Kusum Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No Whether reportable Yes/No KUSUM 2026.03.01 12:56 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document PHHC Chandigarh