IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH (129) CRM-M-48008-2025 Decided on : 22.09.2025 Karandeep Singh ……Petitioner(s) Versus State of Punjab and others ……Respondent(s) CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SUMEET GOEL Present:- Mr. Karan Bhardwaj, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Amit Kumar Goyal, Addl. AG, Punjab for respondent Nos.1 to 3. None for respondent Nos.4 & 5. **** SUMEET GOEL, JUDGE (Oral) 1. The petition in hand has been preferred under Section 528 of BNSS, 2023 with the following substantive prayer(s):- “It is, therefore, respectfully prayed that the present Criminal Misc. Petition u/s 528 of BNSS, 2023 with a prayer for directing the respondent no. 1 to 3 that they shall take necessary steps to the effect that there is no obstruction in plying of the vehicle of the petitioner and to take appropriate legal action against respondent no. 4 and 5 who are trying and making an attempt to forcibly take away the vehicle of the petitioner bearing registration number (PB 11CB 7797) with the help of recovery agents and henchmen while it was running on road, as the petitioner has already paid substantial loan amount and this conduct of respondent no. 4 and 5 is against the mandate of constitutional bench of Hon'ble Apex court in "Citicorp Maruti Finance Ltd. v/s S Vijayalakhsmi 2012(1) SCC 1" and in "ICICI Bank Ltd. Vs Parkash Kaur and others (JT-2007(4) SC 39), and by this Hon'ble Court in Narinder Kumar Singla Vs State of Punjab (2006 (3) RCR 890). M/s Sundaram Finance Ltd v/s Raj Kumar & others 2011 (4) RCR (Crl) 890, in the interest of Justice.” 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner after arguing for sometime has limited his prayer by stating that he would be satisfied, for the nonce, if a direction is issued to respondent No.2 (Senior Superintendent of Police, District NAVEEN NAGPAL 2025.09.22 17:57 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment HIgh Court Chandigarh CRM-M-48008-2025 P a g e | 2 Patiala) to consider and take a conscious decision on the representation dated 14.06.2025 made by the petitioner (copy whereof has been annexed as Annexure P-2 with the petition in hand) in a time-bound manner. 3. Having heard learned counsel for the rival party(s) and upon perusal of the paper-book, this Court deems it appropriate to dispose of the petition in hand as follows: (i) Respondent No.2 (Senior Superintendent of Police, District Patiala) is mandated to look into the representation dated 14.06.2025 (Annexure P- 2) moved by the petitioner; objectively consider the grievance(s) raised therein after affording opportunity to all concerned & take ratiocinated decision thereupon within a period of 15 days from today. Said decision be conveyed to the petitioner within 7 days thereafter. It is expected that the said officer, while deciding the said representation, shall take into consideration the dicta of the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court passed in ICICI Bank Ltd. Vs Parkash Kaur and others (JT-2007(4) SC 39) and Citicorp Maruti Finance Ltd. v/s S Vijayalakhsmi 2012(1) SCC 1. (ii) No order as to costs. (SUMEET GOEL) 22.09.2025 JUDGE Naveen Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No Whether Reportable : Yes/No NAVEEN NAGPAL 2025.09.22 17:57 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment HIgh Court Chandigarh