Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Punjab and Haryana · body

2025 DAILYLAW 70372 (PNJ)

MANJEET SINGH AND OTHERS v. STATE OF PUNJAB AND OTHERS

CRWP/6472/2025 · 2025-07-11

Sanjay Vashisth

body2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

CRWP-6472-2025 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 114 CRWP-6472-2025 Decided on :11.07.2025 Manjeet Singh and others . . . Petitioner(s) Versus State of Punjab and others . . . Respondent(s) CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY VASHISTH Present: Mr. Simranjit Singh, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. Neeraj Madaan, Sr. DAG, Punjab **** SANJAY VASHISTH , J. (Oral) 1. Present criminal writ petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking issuance of directions to respondents No. 2 and 5 to protect the life and liberty of the petitioners at the hands of respondent No.6. 2. Learned State counsel has filed a status report by way of an affidavit of Shri Riputapan Singh Sandhu, PPS, Superintendent of Police – SDPO (City), Tarn Taran, District Tarn Taran, on behalf of respondents No. 1 to 5, in Court today. The same is taken on record. The Registry is directed to tag the status report at the appropriate place in the paper-book. 3. As per the relevant averments in paragraph No. 2 of the status report, it is mentioned that respondent No. 6 has never issued any threats to the petitioners. Rather, it is alleged that the instant petition has been filed to save the skin of Amrinder Singh, son of petitioner No. 1, RASHMI 2025.07.14 15:17 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRWP-6472-2025 2 against whom FIR No. 146 dated 11.06.2025 has been registered under Sections 109, 3(5), 351(2), and 60 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, and Sections 25/27 of the Arms Act, at Police Station City Tarn Taran. The status report further reveals that an inquiry was conducted into the representation dated 16.06.2025, and it was found to be false and frivolous. Accordingly, the Enquiry Officer recommended that no further action be taken on the said representation. 4. In view of the reply filed by the State and the findings recorded therein, this Court finds no cause of action in favour of the petitioners for issuance of any directions as prayed for. Accordingly, the present writ petition is dismissed. (SANJAY VASHISTH) JUDGE 11.07.2025 Rashmi Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No Whether Reportable: Yes/No RASHMI 2025.07.14 15:17 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document