Manjit Kaur v. State of Punjab and Ors

ANOOP CHITKARA, J.

¶1Apprehending threat at the hands of respondents No.3 to 5, the pe!!oner has come up before this Court seeking writ in the nature of mandamus direc!ng the Punjab Police to protect her life and of her family members. In addi!on to this relief, pe!!oner had also sought a protec!on to comply with provisions of Sec!on 160 CrPC before calling the pe!!oner to police sta!on and to decide her representa!on Annexure P-1.

¶2Pe!!oner's claim is that on 13.08.2024, respondents No.4 and 5 who are police officials in civil dress entered her house. Pe!!oner 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 scaIered the household ar!cles and they also took away six gold rings kept in the cupboard and Rs.50,000/- cash lying in the cupboard. Pe!!oner also stated that she received a call from one Sewak Singh who claimed that he is speaking from police sta!on 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 pe!!on in which it is men!oned that they had received a representa!on in which she had men!oned about illegal entry of police officials, theN of Rs.50,000/- and gold rings. On this, representa!on was marked to DySP to conduct detailed inquiry. The concerned DySP submiIed report dated 22.10.2024 which reads as follows:- "4. That the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Sub-Division A+ari, District Amritsar (Rural), submi+ed his report no. 761-5A dated High Court, Sector 1, Chandigarh 1

22.10.2024. That the following points have come on record in the inquiry conducted by the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Sub-Division A+ari, which are men"oned herein for the kind perusal of this Hon'ble Court: i. That the complainant/pe""oner Manjit Kaur was served with various parwanas/no"ces 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 representa"on submi+ed by her. That all these parwanas/no"ces were duly noted by the complainant/pe""oner in the presence of her father-in-law namely Parkash Singh. That it is per"nent to men"on here that the complainant/pe""oner 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/pe""oner Manjit Kaur came present before the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Sub-Division A+ari on 19.10.2024, and got her statement recorded whereby she stated that she has not brought any evidence which supports the allega"ons being leveled by her in the representa"on in regard to the stealing of Rs.50,000/- and gold ar"cles a+er 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 allega"ons 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/pe""oner 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 Sec"on 21/61/85 NDPS Act Police Sta"on ChaBwind, 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 inten"on of complainant, while leveling wrong allega"ons on the officials. However, even a+er giving appropriate opportuni"es she failed to bring on record any evidence which proved the allega"ons. iv. That it is per"nent to men"on 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 men"oned herein below for the kind perusal of this Hon'ble Court:- • FIR No. 141 dated 09.10.2024 under Sec"on 21/61/85 NDPS Act registered at Police Sta"on ChaBwind, District Amritsar (Rural).  FIR No. 84 dated 23.05.2020 under Sec"on 61-1-14 Excise Act registered at Police Sta"on ChaBwind, District Amritsar (Rural). • FIR No. 128 dated 09.09.2023 under Sec"on 323, 160, 341, 506, 148, 149 IPC and Sec"on 21, 22, 29/61/85 NDPS Act registered at Police Sta"on ChaBwind, District Amritsar (Rural).  FIR No. 181 dated 06.08.2020 under Sec"on 61-1-14 Excise Act registered at Police Sta"on ChaBwind, District Amritsar (Rural).  FIR No. 53 dated 04.06.2017 under Sec"on 61-1-14 Excise Act registered at Police Sta"on ChaBwind, District Amritsar (Rural).  FIR No. 46 dated 02.04.2020 under Sec"on 188 IPC registered at Police Sta"on ChaBwind, District Amritsar (Rural).  FIR No. 157 dated 10.11.2012 under Sec"on 61-1-14 Excise Act registered at Police Sta"on ChaBwind, District Amritsar (Rural). High Court, Sector 1, Chandigarh 2 It is clear from the criminal record that Manjit Kaur and her family are habitual offenders and are involved in the illicit trade of narco"c substances. v. That the statement of the 2 police personnel namely Ct. Kuljinder Singh 1793/ASR-R and PHG Palwinder Singh 2606/3 Ba+alion Amritsar, were also recorded whereby they stated that a Cordon and Search Opera"on (CASO), was being carried out on the direc"ons 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. Therea+er, the police officials did not enter into the house or any room and went back from outside itself.

¶5That a+er conduc"ng the detailed inquiry the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Sub-Division A+ari, District Amritsar (Rural), submi+ed 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 allega"ons leveled by the pe""oner/complainant and there are no merits in the same. The said officer further stated that the complainant/pe""oner is filing false and frivolous complaints to unnecessarily harass the police officials. Therefore, it was recommended that the representa"on No. 1734-PP dated 09.09.2024 be consigned to the record room. That further in regard to the audio recording report from Sta"on House Officer, Police Sta"on ChaBwind was obtained as per which on the perusal of the audio recording, nothing material came on record in regard to the allega"ons leveled by the pe""oner. Thus, the report dated 23.10.2024 was approved by the deponent on 08.11.2024, and the representa"on was consigned to the record room."

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

¶4Given above, it is clarified that in case pe!!oner is called, then due compliance shall be made unless she is an accused in FIR. High Court, Sector 1, Chandigarh 3

¶5Pe!!on is disposed of. Regarding theN, it is always open for the pe!!oner to file appropriate complaint in the concerned police sta!on and in case of alterna!ve approach the concerned JMIC under Sec!on 175 of BNSS. All pending applica!ons, if any, stand disposed. (ANOOP CHITKARA) JUDGE

19.12.2024 Jyo! Sharma Whether reportable: No. High Court, Sector 1, Chandigarh 4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Reserved on: 13.12.2024 Pronounced on: 19.12.2024 Manjit Kaur ...Pe!!oner Versus State of Punjab and others …Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANOOP CHITKARA Present: Mr. Rishu Mahajan, Advocate for the pe!!oner. Mr. Akshay Kumar, A.A.G., Punjab. ****