IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 111 CWP-33140-2024 Date of Decision : March 05, 2025 SUKHVIR SINGH GILL -PETITIONER V/S STATE OF PUNJAB AND OTHERS -RESPONDENTS CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KULDEEP TIWARI Present: Mr. Tarun Sharma, Advocate (Through V.C.) for the petitioner. Mr. Pardeep Bajaj, D.A.G., Punjab. Mr. Brijeshwar Singh Bhalla, Advocate for the respondent No.9. *** KULDEEP TIWARI, J. (ORAL) 1. The prayer encompassed in the instant writ petition appertains to issuance of directions upon the officials respondents not to initiate multiple inquiries against the petitioner on the complaint(s) made by respondent No.9, as the same causes harassment to him and his family members. 2. The short reply dated 24.02.2025, as furnished by the learned State counsel, makes revelations that, initially on 11.06.2024, the respondent No.9 moved an application against the petitioner and one Sukhjinder Singh. During the course of enquiry in this application, the respondent No.9 moved two more applications against the petitioner, his wife Loveleen Kaur and Sukhjinder Singh, on the same cause of action. Consequent upon completion of enquiry, these applications were recommended to be consgined. Thereafter, the respondent No.9 again DEVINDER YADAV 2025.03.07 09:44 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment CWP-33140-2024 2 moved an application against the petitioner, his wife Loveleen Kaur and Sukhjinder Singh on a different set of allegations, i.e. forging of signatures on partnership deed. In order to substantiate these allegations, the respondent No.9 also enclosed the report of a private Fingerprint and Handwriting Expert. Therefore, now an inquiry in respect of this application is imperative to ascertain the role of the petitioner and the veracity of the allegations. 3. The learned State counsel, by citing the hereinabove extracted details enclosed in the short reply, submit that, the case at hand is not a case of multiple inquiries inasmuch as the present inquiry has been launched in respect of a complaint clothing altogether different allegations than the ones voiced in the initial complaints, which are already recommended to be consigned. 4. At this stage, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that, just a day before yesterday, an FIR enclosing the same allegations, in respect whereof the petitioner has been summoned to face inquiry by the Superintendent of Police (NRI), Ludhiana-2, has been registered, hence there is no necessity to proceed with the said inquiry. 5. This Court has heard the learned counsels for the parties and also perused the record. 6. Insofar as the principal submission of the petitioner’s counsel regarding conducting of multiple inquiries is concerned, the short reply (supra) demolishes this submission inasmuch as it clearly spells out that, the inquiry which is now being conducted is based on a different set of allegations than the ones carried in the initial applications/complaints DEVINDER YADAV 2025.03.07 09:44 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment CWP-33140-2024 3 made by the respondent No.9 and which are already recommended to be consigned. 7. The secondary submission of the petitioner’s counsel, as made today before this Court, appertains to registration of an FIR in respect of the same allegations, in respect whereof inquiry is being conducted by the Superintendent of Police concerned. Although the petitioner’s counsel has not placed on record the copy of the said FIR, which he claims to have been registered on alike allegations as the ones embodied in the latest application/complaint made by the respondent No.9, yet this Court deems it appropriate to grant liberty to the petitioner to approach the Superintendent of Police concerned with the copy of said FIR and apprise him about the supervening events. In case, the petitioner approaches the Superintendent of Police concerned and apprises him about the supervening events, with proof of his submission (supra), the latter shall, after examining the veracity thereof, take an appropriate decision. 8. Disposed of accordingly. (KULDEEP TIWARI) March 05, 2025 JUDGE devinder Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No Whether Reportable : Yes/No DEVINDER YADAV 2025.03.07 09:44 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment