CRWP-8917-2024 (O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 275 CRWP-8917-2024 (O&M) Date of decision: 08.09.2025 Sandeep Kaur ...Petitioner Versus State of Punjab and others ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE MANISHA BATRA Present:- Mr. Anoop Verma, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Roshandeep Singh, AAG, Punjab. MANISHA BATRA, J. (Oral) 1. The present petition has been filed by the petitioner under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India seeking issuance of directions to the official respondents to protect the life and liberty of the petitioner from the hands of respondents No. 5 to 9 and to take action on her representation dated 12.08.2024 (Annexure P-6). 2. Status report has been filed by the respondent-State. It is submitted therein and learned State counsel has argued that there is a property dispute between the husband of the petitioner and respondent No. 6-Hari Singh. On the statement of respondent No. 6, an FIR bearing No. 104 dated 10.08.2024, under Sections 109, 324(2), 324(6) and 3(5) of BNS, 2023 and Section 25 of the Arms Act had been registered against the husband of the petitioner on the allegations that he, armed with .315 bore rifle, along with an unknown person, armed with datar, came into the fields of respondent No. 6 and started giving fireshots with his rifle towards the complainant and his MOHAMMAD WASEEM ANSARI 2025.09.10 10:32 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRWP-8917-2024 (O&M) -2- nephew with intention to kill them but they somehow saved themselves. Subsequently, the husband of the petitioner had been granted concession of pre-arrest bail by the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Tarn Taran. He was joined into investigation. On his statement, a cross case bearing DDR No. 32 dated 14.09.2024, under Sections 125 and 3(5) of BNS and Sections 25 and 27 of the Arms Act had been registered against the complainant party i.e. respondents No. 5, 6, 8 and 9. It is further submitted that husband and brother of the petitioner are habitual offenders. There are total ten cases, which have been registered against them. With regard to threat perception to the life and liberty of the petitioner as well as her family members, a thorough investigation inquiry was conducted and it was found that there was no such threat to their life and liberty. In view thereof, the dismissal of the petition is prayed for. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner could not dispute the factual assertions but has argued for addition of certain other sections in the aforesaid cross version. 4. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and going through the material placed on record, it is revealed that appropriate action has already been taken by the police in the matter. During inquiry conducted by the police, no threat perception either to the petitioner or her family members has been found. So far as the prayer for addition of other offences in the cross version is concerned, no such direction can be issued by this Court as it is the prerogative of the prosecution. Even otherwise, the proper remedy for the petitioner would be to approach the Area Magistrate. Keeping in view the MOHAMMAD WASEEM ANSARI 2025.09.10 10:32 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRWP-8917-2024 (O&M) -3- aforesaid facts and circumstances, the present petition is disposed of as no further orders are called for in the matter. 5. However, the petitioner is granted liberty to avail her alternative remedy in accordance with law, if so advised. 08.09.2025 (MANISHA BATRA) Waseem Ansari JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No Whether reportable Yes/No MOHAMMAD WASEEM ANSARI 2025.09.10 10:32 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document