Kiranjeet Kaur v. State of Punjab and Ors

KULDEEP TIWARI, J. (ORAL)

¶1Through the instant criminal writ petition, the petitioner craves for issuance of directions upon the official respondents, to protection of her life, liberty and property at the hands of the private respondents.

¶2Before this Court proceeds to pen down any conclusion upon the instant criminal writ petition, it is deemed appropriate to, at this juncture, record that this is not the first occasion when the petitioner has approached this Court for claiming the relief (supra), rather she has done many a time through hers instituting several motions before this Court, details whereof are referred to hereinafter.

¶3Initially, the petitioner approached this Court by filing CRWP-349-2022, thereby seeking protection of her life and liberty. This criminal writ petition was disposed of by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court, through drawing the order dated 14.01.2022 (Annexure P-4) and directions CRWP-10714-2024 were issued to the official respondents therein to take necessary action on the petitioner's complaints/representations/applications in accordance with law.

¶4Thereafter, the petitioner again knocked the doors of this Court through instituting CRWP-2202-2022, which was also disposed of by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court, vide order dated 20.07.2022 (Annexure P-7). This order embodied directions upon the official respondent(s) therein to consider and decide the petitioner's representation, in accordance with law, after getting verified the contents thereof through some gazetted police officer.

¶5Fetching grievance from inaction on the part of the official respondent(s) concerned to comply with the directions embodied in the order dated 20.07.2022, the petitioner filed COCP-2106-2022 before this Court, thereby praying for initiation of proceedings against the respondents concerned for intentional and willful defiance of the order (supra). However, when the said contempt petition came up for hearing on

13.12.2022, the petitioner's counsel made a submission that needful in terms of order (supra) has been done by the respondents concerned by passing order dated 21.09.2022, therefore, petitioner is not interested in pursuing the said petition. Accordingly, vide order dated 13.12.2022 (Annexure P-8), this contempt petition was also disposed of, as no action against the respondent under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 was required to be initiated.

¶6The efforts of the petitioner did not pause her, as she again filed CRWP-11443-2023 before this Court. However, this criminal writ petition CRWP-10714-2024 3 as dismissed as withdrawn vide order dated 13.03.2024 (Annexure P-11), but, with liberty to the petitioner to avail alternate statutory remedy for redressal of her grievance.

¶7Now, the petitioner is again before this Court through institution of the instant criminal writ petition, which embodies pleas and claims alike to the ones canvassed in the earlier petitions.

¶8This Court had, through drawing the order dated 08.11.2024, directed the learned State counsel to, after getting evaluated the threat perception to the petitioner, file a status report on affidavit of the S.S.P. concerned. Accordingly, the status report dated 25.11.2024 was furnished before this Court on 26.11.2024.

¶9What emerges forth from the status report (supra) is that, on

22.08.2024, an altercation took place between the petitioner and respondent No.9. In this altercation, the respondent No.9 suffered 04 injury and resultantly, G.D. No.17 dated 30.08.2024, under Sections 115(2), 351(2), 3(5) of the B.N.S. was registered against the petitioner on the basis of statement made by the respondent No.9.

¶10The further relevant revelations made in the status report (supra) are reproduced hereunder:- "...ii. Furthermore, with regard to the photos produced by petitioner about the incident dated 22.08.2024, statement of HC Jaspa  !ingh was recorded who stated that when po ice officia s were trying to iron out differences between both the sides, somebody c ic"ed the said pictures. #fter sorting out the issue, both the sides went bac" to their respecti$e houses and HC Jaspa  !ingh had $erba y as"ed both the sides to come present at %o ice !tation the ne&t day. iii. 'ith regard to the incident dated 22.08.2024, it is pertinent to CRWP-10714-2024 4 mention herein that taking into account the law and order situation, a Kalandra U/s 126, 169 of BNSS, was registered vide G.D No. 12 dated 04.09.2024 at Police Station: Kartarpur and presented before the Ld. SDM. iv.  No evidence or witness was produced by the petitioner with regard to the allegations leveled by her that residents of S.P Enclave fought with her. v.   The   petitioner,   during   inquiry,   stated   that   on   22.08.2024, Respondent No. 4 Noori (wife of Rakesh Kumar) along with her accomplices asked for a ransom amount of Rs. 30,00,000/-. It was alleged by the petitioner that Respondent No. 4 Noori and her accomplices had threatened the petitioner by saying that if the petitioner does not pay Rs. 30,00,000/-, they would kidnap the petitioner in the presence of police officials. It is pertinent to mention herein that with regard to the said allegation, statement of Jatinder   Singh   (who   was   alleged   by   the   petitioner   to   be   an accomplice of Noori while asking for ransom and can be seen in the video produced by the petitioner) was recorded who stated that on

22.08.2024, he had gone to S.P Enclave to deliver burgers and seeing a gathering of people including police officials, he stood there. The said Jatinder Singh stated that he does not know either of the parties and barely stood at the spot because people had gathered there. In the video produced by the petitioner, the petitioner herself was claiming that ransom is being demanded from her by the other side. It is unfathomable to comprehend that any person would ask for ransom money in the presence of public. Thus, the allegations leveled by the petitioner were found to be false. vi. On 12.11.2024, it was alleged by the petitioner that private respondents had threatened her. It is respectfully submitted that for the  purpose  of  the inquiry  proceedings  related to the present petition, DSP/Karatrpur had sent HC Parminder Singh to inform the petitioner as well as private respondents to come present for their version. In his statement, HC Parminder Singh stated that after giving notice (parvana) to Noori (wife of Rakesh Kumar) and other private respondents, the private respondents asked HC Parminder Singh as to whether a notice has been given to the petitioner as well. CRWP-10714-2024 5 Thus,   the   allegations   leveled   by   the   petitioner   that   private respondents had threatened her were found to be false as the private respondents had only asked HC Parminder Singh that whether notice   for   joining   inquiry   proceedings   has   been   given   to   the petitioner as well...."

¶11The inference stemming from a collective reading of the status report (supra) is that, there is no threat or danger to the petitioner. In fact, the instant criminal writ petition has been filed with an oblique motive to exert pressure upon the police to take action against the private respondents. Even otherwise, if the petitioner has any grievance against the private re-spondents, she is seized of an alternate and efficacious statutory remedy for redressal thereof.

¶12Taking into account the hereinabove discussed mala fide con-duct of the petitioner, although this Court wants to impose exemplary costs upon the petitioner for time and again filing frivolous motions before this Court and wasting the precious time of this Court, but, taking a lenient view as the petitioner is a quinquagenarian lady, this Court refrains from doing so. However, the petitioner is cautioned to be careful in future before insti-tuting any kind of frivolous motion before this Court.

¶13In summa, the instant petition is 2$%:$%%e2. (KULDEEP TIWARI) December 03, 2024                       JUDGE

CRWP-10714-2024 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 114 CRWP-10714-2024 Date of Decision : December 03, 2024 KIRANJEET KAUR -PETITIONER V/S STATE OF PUNJAB AND ORS -RESPONDENTS CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KULDEEP TIWARI Present: Dr. Sumati Jund, Advocate (Through V.C.) for the petitioner. Mr. Pardeep Bajaj, D.A.G., Punjab. ***