115 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRWP No.5787 of 2025 Date of Decision: 02.06.2025 Harpreet Kaur …Petitioner Versus State of Punjab and others …Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE MEENAKSHI I. MEHTA Present:- Mr. Ashish Soi, Advocate, for the petitioner. * * * * MEENAKSHI I. MEHTA, J. (Oral) By way of filing this petition, the petitioner has sought the indulgence of this Court for the issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus, directing respondents No.2 and 3 to protect her as well as her family members’ lives and liberty, while averring that they apprehend threat to the same at the hands of respondents No.5 to 9 and she has already moved a representation (Annexure P-2) to respondent No.2 in this regard. She (petitioner) has made a further prayer for issuing the direction to respondent No.3 to decide her representation Annexure P-3. 2. Notice of motion to respondents No.1 to 3 only. 3. Mr. Karunesh Kaushal, learned AAG, Punjab, has appeared on behalf of respondents No.1 to 3 in this case in pursuance of the copies of the present petition having been sent to the respondent-State in advance and he accepts the notice on their behalf. 4. Heard. SEEMA SHARMA 2025.06.02 18:58 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment CRWP No.5787 of 2025 -2- 5. At this stage, learned counsel for the petitioner restricts his prayer to the issuance of direction to respondent No.2 to look into and take appropriate action only on representation Annexure P-2, as moved by the petitioner to the above-said respondent, for seeking protection of her and her family members’ lives and liberty. 6. Learned State counsel has no objection for the same. 7. Keeping in view the intent of the fundamental right as enshrined in Article 21 of the Constitution of India which ensures the protection of life and liberty to the citizens as well as the afore-discussed limited prayer as made by learned counsel for the petitioner and without commenting or expressing any opinion on the merits or factual aspects of the matter in dispute between the petitioner and the above-referred private respondents, respondent No.2-Senior Superintendent of Police, Canal Colony, Rupnagar, Punjab, is, hereby, directed only to look into the representation Annexure P-2 of the petitioner, pertaining to her prayer for the protection of her own as well as her family members’ lives and liberty and if it is found that they genuinely deserve any protection, then to take appropriate action in accordance with law. 8. However, it is clarified that this order shall not be construed to be a shield to the petitioner and her family members against any civil or criminal action/proceedings already initiated or intended/contemplated to be initiated against them by any competent authority/person on account of the afore-said dispute and permissible under the relevant provisions of law. 9. The petition in hand stands disposed of accordingly. 02.06.2025 (MEENAKSHI I. MEHTA) seema JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes Whether Reportable: No SEEMA SHARMA 2025.06.02 18:58 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment