AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
No AI summary yet
Generate an eight-section analysis of this judgment — facts, issues, reasoning, ratio and a plain-language gist.
Judgment
6 paragraphs · 252 wordsAugustine George Masih, J
Petitioners have approached this Court praying for protection of their life and liberty at the hands of respondents No. 4 and 5 (private respondents).
Highlighting this aspect, the petitioners have submitted a representation dated 13.10.2021 (Annexure P-3) to the Senior Superintendent of Police, District Pathankot-respondent No. 2.
Counsel for the State, on instructions from ASI Sarabjeet Singh, Police Station Taragarh, District Pathankot, has informed the Court that the statements of the petitioners have been recorded. He further states 1 of 2 that even the statement of father of petitioner No. 2, namely, Pritam Chand has been recorded which indicates that there is no threat to the petitioners.
In the light of the above, this petition is disposed of with directions to The Senior Superintendent of Police, District Pathankot- respondent No. 2 and The Station House Officer, Police Station Taragarh, District Pathankot-respondent No. 3 to look into the representation dated 13.10.2021 (Annexure P-3) submitted by the petitioners and in case some substance is found therein, steps, in accordance with law, be initiated to ensure that the life and liberty of the petitioners is not jeopardized in any manner at the hands of respondents No. 4 and 5, except in accordance with law.
It is made clear that in case of violation of any law by the petitioners, the law will take its own course and this order shall not be treated as an impediment of any nature in the investigation or process involved as per the Statute and law.