242 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRWP-8500-2024 Date of Decision: 27.08.2026 JOGINDER KAUR SANDHU ... Petitioner(s) Versus STATE OF PUNJAB AND OTHERS ...Respondent(s) CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JASJIT SINGH BEDI Present: Mr. Charanjit Sharma, Advocate for the petitioner(s). Mr. I.P.S. Sabarwal, Sr. DAG, Punjab. **** JASJIT SINGH BEDI, J. (Oral) The prayer in the present petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is (i) for issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the official respondent No.1 and 3 to protect the life and liberty of the petitioner; (ii) for issuance of directions to the Investigating Agency that 07 days’ prior notice be given, in case the petitioner is to be called to the Police Station in any case and (iii) to conduct a free and fair investigation in all the cases in which the petitioner has been implicated. 2. The learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner is aggrieved by the action of the Police, which has falsely implicated her in multiple cases, in which she has either been acquitted, the proceedings have been quashed or cancellation reports have been filed. She apprehends threat to her life and liberty. He prays that in case the investigating agency requires the presence of the petitioner, 07 days’ prior notice be given in writing to her. He further prays that a free and fair investigation be conducted in all the cases registered against the petitioner by the CBI or any other independent agency in view of the fact that the Investigating Agency is hand in glove with each other to implicate the petitioner in one or the other case. VISHAL SETHI 2026.08.31 10:28 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRWP-8500-2024 -2- 3. The learned counsel for the State, on the other hand, contends that the petitioner has already been acquitted in 09 cases as mentioned in Annexure P-26. The question of referring the said cases for a further investigation/re- investigation, after the trials have concluded, does not arise. He further contends that FIR No.100 dated 07.06.2005 under Section 406 and 420 IPC at Police Station Model Town, Ludhiana stands registered against the petitioner where the complainant is ASI Santokh Singh. In the said case, a cancellation report has already been submitted, which has been opposed by the complainant- ASI Santokh Singh. Therefore, no further orders are required to be passed by this Court. 4. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties. 5. Admittedly, the petitioner is a lady of the age of 80 years. She has faced trials in multiple cases in all of which she has been acquitted or proceedings have been quashed. She is an Indian citizen with French residency. There seems to be some pattern in the conduct of the Investigating Agency inasmuch as, as many as 09 cases have been registered against the petitioner, all of which have either ended in the FIR being quashed or the petitioner being acquitted. 6. In view of the above, the present petition is disposed of with the directions to respondent No.2 to ensure protection of the life and liberty of the petitioner. In case, the presence of the petitioner is required for inquiry/investigation in any case, the provisions of Section 179 and 35 of BNSS be strictly complied with. 7. All the pending miscellaneous applications, if any, stand disposed of. (JASJIT SINGH BEDI) JUDGE August 27, 2026 vishal Whether speaking/reasoned:- Yes/No Whether reportable:- Yes/No VISHAL SETHI 2026.08.31 10:28 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document