Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Punjab and Haryana · body

2025 DAILYLAW 47768 (PNJ)

NIDHI AND ANR v. SWARAN SINGH IPS AND OTHERS

COCP/2008/2025 · 2025-05-14

Vikram Aggarwal

body2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 101 COCP-2008-2025 (O&M) Date of decision: 14.05.2025 Nidhi and another …Petitioners V/s Swaran Singh and others …Respondents CORAM : HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE VIKRAM AGGARWAL Present: Mr. Naveen Sheokand, Advocate, for the petitioners. Ms. Shiny Chopra, AAG, Punjab. *** VIKRAM AGGARWAL, J (ORAL) Affidavit of the Commissioner of Police, Police Commissionerate, Ludhiana filed in the Court today is taken on record. As per the affidavit, the representation (Annexure P-5) had been marked to the then Additional Deputy Commissioner of Police, Zone-1, Ludhiana vide communication dated 16.01.2025, with a direction to consider the contents of the representation and submit a fact finding report. The Addl. Deputy Commissioner of Police, Zone-1, Ludhiana further directed the Assistant Commissioner of Police, Central, Ludhiana to conduct a fact finding inquiry on the representation and submit a report. 2. Accordingly, an inquiry was conducted, wherein statements of both parties were recorded and a final report was prepared which was sent to the requisite quarters. Upon a perusal of the report, certain facts emerge, the details of which have been mentioned in paragraph 7 of the affidavit. It has further been averred that after the inquiry having been conducted, the representation was decided and was consigned to the record room and intimation was also sent to this Court vide communication dated 11.03.2025. The said communication has been annexed as Annexure R-1/T, wherein it has VIKAS CHANDER 2025.05.16 08.29 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document COCP-2008-2025 -2- been mentioned that after the inquiry, it was found that the applicant was staying at her paternal house for the last one year and there was a dispute going on regarding her matrimonial life. It was found that there was no threat of law and order and no need of further inquiry was found to be there. 3. In view thereof, no further orders are required to be passed by this Court. 4. The contempt petition is accordingly disposed of. Rule is discharged. Pending application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of. (VIKRAM AGGARWAL) JUDGE May 14, 2025 vcgarg Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No Whether reportable : Yes/No VIKAS CHANDER 2025.05.16 08.29 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document