High CourtsSingle Bench

Kuldeep Singh vs State Of Punjab And Others

Punjab And Haryana At Chandigarh · Decided on 4 December 2019 · Citation: (2019) 12 P&H CK 0187

HON’BLE JUDGES
Harnaresh Singh Gill, J
ACTS & SECTIONS REFERRED
Constitution Of India, 1950 — Article 226
RESULT
Dismissed
CASE NUMBER
Criminal Writ Petition No. 1508 Of 2019
Ask AI about this case

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 · 281 words
1.

This petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution for issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus directing respondents No. 2 and 3 to protect the life and liberty of the petitioner at the hands of private respondents and also directing the private respondents not to interfere in his personal life and liberty and not to harass him in any manner.

2.

It is stated in the petition that the petitioner and private respondents are known to each other and one of the private respondents i.e. respondent No. 6-Harmesh Lal is a retired Sub Inspector of the police and his son respondent No. 4 has given threat to the petitioner to involve him in a false case.

3.

I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and gone through the representations (Annexures P-1 and P-2) made by the father of petitioner and also the representation (Annexure P-3) given by Amarjot wife of Sandeep Kumar (respondent No. 4), to respondent No. 2-Senior Superintendent of Police, Hoshiarpur.

4.

There are specific allegations made by respondent No. 4 in his complaint dated 09.03.2019 that the petitioner is having illicit relations with his wife and both were found red-handed. On the other hand, the petitioner has made an allegation against respondent No. 4 that he is having illicit relations with one Shalu whose husband is residing abroad and is having three-four plots in her name and that is why, respondent No. 4 is ill-treating his wife-Amarjot Kaur, who is residing in her matrimonial house.

5.

Thus, there being counter allegations from both the sides, I do not find any ground to issue any directions to the official respondents.

6.

Dismissed.