CWP- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT 112 Harnek Singh and another State of Punjab and others CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUVIR SEHGAL Present: SUVIR SEHGAL J. 1. nature of disciplinary action detaining the petitioner from 26.04.2025 to 28.04.2025 and for directing them to pay compensation of Rs.5 Lacs petitioners. 2. states that property dispute -16513-2025 (O&M) IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Harnek Singh and another Vs. State of Punjab and others CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUVIR SEHGAL Present:- Mr. Rajesh Singh Dadwal for the petitioners. Mr. Sahil R. Bakshi, Addl. A.G. Punjab. SUVIR SEHGAL J. Instant petition has been filed for issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the official responde disciplinary action against respondents No. 3 to 6, for illegally detaining the petitioner from 26.04.2025 to 28.04.2025 and for directing them to pay compensation of Rs.5 Lacs petitioners. Mr. Rajesh Singh Dadwal, counsel for the petitioners states that petitioner No.1 is father of respondent No.2 and there is a property dispute inter se. He submits that respondent No.7 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP-16513-2025 (O&M) Date of decision:31.07.2025 … Petitioners … Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUVIR SEHGAL Rajesh Singh Dadwal, Advocate Mr. Sahil R. Bakshi, Addl. A.G. Punjab. Instant petition has been filed for issuance of a writ in the mandamus directing the official respondents to take against respondents No. 3 to 6, for illegally detaining the petitioner from 26.04.2025 to 28.04.2025 and for directing them to pay compensation of Rs.5 Lacs to each of the Mr. Rajesh Singh Dadwal, counsel for the petitioners petitioner No.1 is father of respondent No.2 and there is a He submits that respondent No.7 has 1 Instant petition has been filed for issuance of a writ in the nts to take against respondents No. 3 to 6, for illegally detaining the petitioner from 26.04.2025 to 28.04.2025 and for each of the Mr. Rajesh Singh Dadwal, counsel for the petitioners petitioner No.1 is father of respondent No.2 and there is a has Pooja Saini 2025.08.12 09:38 I attest the integrity and accuracy of this order/judgment CWP- been harassing No.1 disinherited his son with the intervention of effected between them on 18.01.2013, 1 and 2 respondent No.7. Counsel alleges that petitioner Annexure P examine the representations submitted by the petitioners. Counsel submits that on 09.04.2025, members house and abused him by using filthy language. Annexure P before the police authorities. action on the complaints, a kal was issued under Section 126/17 Sanhita petitioners were arrested. He submits that petitioners were sent to judicial custody vide or released on 28.04.2025 on furnishing of bail bonds emphasizes sureties were present on 26.04.2025, -16513-2025 (O&M) been harassing petitioner No.1 and threaten No.1 disinherited his son and daughter with the intervention of respectable, a effected between them on 18.01.2013, 1 and 2, who are brothers, transferred respondent No.7. Counsel alleges that petitioners approached this Court and Annexure P-2, Senior Superintendent of Police examine the representations submitted by the petitioners. Counsel submits that on 09.04.2025, respondent embers of panchayat and relatives, forcibly entered the petitioner house and abused him by using filthy language. Annexure P-3 and P-4 were submitted and the petitioners appeared before the police authorities. Counsel asserts that instead of taking an action on the complaints, a kalandra dat was issued under Section 126/170 of Sanhita (BNSS) on a complaint given petitioners were arrested. He submits that petitioners were sent to judicial custody vide order dated 26.04.2025, Annexure P released on 28.04.2025 on furnishing of bail bonds emphasizes that petitioners were illegally detained and although sureties were present on 26.04.2025, but bail bonds were not accepted. 2 petitioner No.1 and threatened to kill him. Petitioner aughter-in-law in the year 2011, but respectable, a panchayati compromise was effected between them on 18.01.2013, Annexure P-1. Petitioners No. brothers, transferred some land in favour of respondent No.7. Counsel alleges that as relations did not improve, and by order dated 20.03.2014, Superintendent of Police was directed to examine the representations submitted by the petitioners. Counsel respondent No.7 along with some and relatives, forcibly entered the petitioner’s house and abused him by using filthy language. Complaints, submitted and the petitioners appeared Counsel asserts that instead of taking an ndra dated 28.04.2025, Annexure P-7, of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha given by respondent No.7 and the petitioners were arrested. He submits that petitioners were sent to dated 26.04.2025, Annexure P-7 and were released on 28.04.2025 on furnishing of bail bonds. Counsel illegally detained and although but bail bonds were not accepted. 2 to kill him. Petitioner but anchayati compromise was etitioners No. land in favour of as relations did not improve, by order dated 20.03.2014, to examine the representations submitted by the petitioners. Counsel along with some s Complaints, submitted and the petitioners appeared Counsel asserts that instead of taking an 7, Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha by respondent No.7 and the petitioners were arrested. He submits that petitioners were sent to and were . Counsel illegally detained and although but bail bonds were not accepted. Pooja Saini 2025.08.12 09:38 I attest the integrity and accuracy of this order/judgment CWP- Claiming that disciplinary compensation by the Ahmed Noormohmed Bhatii Versus State of Gujarat and others, 2005(2) RCR (Criminal)320 Bengal, State of M.P. and another, 2007(28) RCR (Criminal) 368 of his submissions. 3. his submissions. 4. detention was pursuant to order dated 26.04.2025 SDM, Ahmedgarh. -16513-2025 (O&M) Claiming that petitioners were wrongfully detained, they disciplinary action against SDM and police compensation. Counsel has argued that order SDM was without jurisdiction. Ahmed Noormohmed Bhatii Versus State of Gujarat and others, 2005(2) RCR (Criminal)320; (ii) D.K. Basu Versus State of West Bengal, 1991(1) RCR (Criminal) 372; and (iii) State of M.P. and another, 2007(28) RCR (Criminal) 368 of his submissions. I have heard counsel for the petitioner his submissions. In order to succeed, petitio detention was illegal. Admittedly, petitioners were taken into custody pursuant to order dated 26.04.2025, Annexure P , Ahmedgarh. Order reads as under: “Case titled as State Vs Balvir Singh son of Singh etc. residents of village Kanganwal. (regarding 126/170 B.N.S.S. Police Station Ahmedgarh) Dated:- 26.04.2025 Present:- Respondents Today this Kalandra under Sections 126/170 B.N.S.S. has been presented in the Court by SHO, Police Station Sadar Ahmedgarh namely Amrik Singh 3 etitioners were wrongfully detained, they have sought SDM and police officials, besides claiming has argued that order, Annexure P-7, passed SDM was without jurisdiction. He has placed reliance upon (i) Ahmed Noormohmed Bhatii Versus State of Gujarat and others, D.K. Basu Versus State of West ; and (iii) Medha Patkar Versus State of M.P. and another, 2007(28) RCR (Criminal) 368, in support I have heard counsel for the petitioners and considered In order to succeed, petitioners have to establish that their Admittedly, petitioners were taken into custody , Annexure P-7, passed by the Order reads as under:- “Case titled as State Vs Balvir Singh son of Inder Singh etc. residents of village Kanganwal. (regarding 126/170 B.N.S.S. Police Station Respondents Today this Kalandra under Sections 126/170 B.N.S.S. has been presented in the Court by SHO, dar Ahmedgarh namely Amrik Singh 3 have sought s, besides claiming 7, passed d reliance upon (i) Ahmed Noormohmed Bhatii Versus State of Gujarat and others, D.K. Basu Versus State of West Medha Patkar Versus in support and considered ir Admittedly, petitioners were taken into custody passed by the Inder (regarding 126/170 B.N.S.S. Police Station Today this Kalandra under Sections 126/170 B.N.S.S. has been presented in the Court by SHO, dar Ahmedgarh namely Amrik Singh Pooja Saini 2025.08.12 09:38 I attest the integrity and accuracy of this order/judgment CWP- 5. presentation of the kala asked to furnish bail bonds of R BNSS. However, they did not furnish the bail bonds and were sent to judicial custody. It has been claimed th Gurdev give the sureties There is nothing on record to show that both the sureties were present before the Magistrat petitione serving documents and 28.04.2025, accepted, Order Annexure P the powers vested in it and in -16513-2025 (O&M) A.S.I. Kalandra has been perused. It be registered. The respondents have been directed to submit bail bonds of 50000/50000 under Section 135(3) B.N.S.S. otherwise they be sent to judicial custody. The respondents have not submitted their bail bonds at the spot. The respondents be sent in judicial custody till 28.04.2025. The file be put up on 28.04.2025. A perusal of the above reproduced order shows presentation of the kalandra by the SHO concerned, petitioners were asked to furnish bail bonds of Rs.50,000/ . However, they did not furnish the bail bonds and were sent to judicial custody. It has been claimed th v Singh and Gurjant Singh son of give the sureties, but there is no material to substantiate this assertion. There is nothing on record to show that both the sureties were present before the Magistrate on 26.04.2025. Reliance has been placed by the petitioners on affidavits, Annexures P serving documents and do not advance the case 28.04.2025, when the bail bonds were furnished, accepted, release warrants were issued and petitioners were rder Annexure P-7, has been passed by the Magistrate in exe the powers vested in it and in absence of any challenge 4 A.S.I. Kalandra has been perused. It be registered. The respondents have been directed to submit bail bonds of 50000/50000 under Section 135(3) B.N.S.S. otherwise they be sent to judicial custody. The respondents have ubmitted their bail bonds at the spot. The respondents be sent in judicial custody till 28.04.2025. The file be put up on 28.04.2025. Sd/- Sub Divisional Magistrate Ahmedgarh.” A perusal of the above reproduced order shows that on by the SHO concerned, petitioners were .50,000/- each under Section 135(3) . However, they did not furnish the bail bonds and were sent to judicial custody. It has been claimed that Jagdeep Singh son of Late Singh son of Inder Singh were prepared to t there is no material to substantiate this assertion. There is nothing on record to show that both the sureties were present on 26.04.2025. Reliance has been placed by the rs on affidavits, Annexures P-8 and P-9, which are self not advance the case of the petitioners. On bail bonds were furnished, which were release warrants were issued and petitioners were set free. 7, has been passed by the Magistrate in exercise of bsence of any challenge in the writ 4 A.S.I. Kalandra has been perused. It be registered. The respondents have been directed to submit bail bonds of 50000/50000 under Section 135(3) B.N.S.S. otherwise they be sent to judicial custody. The respondents have ubmitted their bail bonds at the spot. The respondents be sent in judicial custody till 28.04.2025. on by the SHO concerned, petitioners were each under Section 135(3) . However, they did not furnish the bail bonds and were sent to ep Singh son of Late nder Singh were prepared to t there is no material to substantiate this assertion. There is nothing on record to show that both the sureties were present on 26.04.2025. Reliance has been placed by the 9, which are self . On which were set free. rcise of in the writ Pooja Saini 2025.08.12 09:38 I attest the integrity and accuracy of this order/judgment CWP- petition detention of the petitioners claim for compensation is unfounded and Similarly officials to be entertained are not applicable to the facts of the case. 6. though, 31.07.2025 pooja saini Whether Speaking/Reasoned Whether Reportable -16513-2025 (O&M) petition, it cannot be set aside. Till the time this order detention of the petitioners cannot be said to be claim for compensation is unfounded and Similarly, prayer for taking disciplinary action against t officials, who have acted in discharge of their duty entertained. Judgments relied upon by counsel for the petitioner are not applicable to the facts of the case. There is no merit in the writ petition, which is dismissed though, with no order as to costs. .2025 pooja saini Whether Speaking/Reasoned Yes/No Whether Reportable Yes/No 5 ill the time this order is not quashed, be said to be unlawful. As such, claim for compensation is unfounded and it deserves to be rejected. prayer for taking disciplinary action against the police who have acted in discharge of their duty, does not deserve udgments relied upon by counsel for the petitioners are not applicable to the facts of the case. There is no merit in the writ petition, which is dismissed (SUVIR SEHGAL) JUDGE Yes/No Yes/No 5 , . As such, deserves to be rejected. he police does not deserve s There is no merit in the writ petition, which is dismissed Pooja Saini 2025.08.12 09:38 I attest the integrity and accuracy of this order/judgment