NIRMLA RANI AND OTHERS v. STATE OF UT CHANDIGARH AND OTHERS
CRWP/8029/2026 · 2026-07-09
Virinder Aggarwal
body2026
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2026 DAILYLAW 28285 (PNJ) · dailylaw.ai ]
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2026 DAILYLAW 28285 (PNJ) · dailylaw.ai ]
Judgment text
Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.
CRWP-8029-2026 1 121
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
CRWP-8029-2026 Date of Decision: 09.07.2026 NIRMLA RANI AND OTHERS ......... Petitioners Versus STATE OF U.T. AND OTHERS ..... Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIRINDER AGGARWAL Present : Ms. Mamta, Advocate, for Mr. Rishu Garg, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. Samir Rathaur, Addl. Public Prosecutor, U.T. Chandigarh for respondents No.1 to 3. **** VIRINDER AGGARWAL
, J. (Oral)
1. The present petition has been filed under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India seeking issuance of directions to the official respondents No.1 to 3 to ensure protection of the life and personal liberty of the petitioners from the illegal and unlawful acts of the private respondents No. 4 to 7 and further directing the official respondents to conduct fair and impartial inquiry in complaint/representation dated 15.06.2026 (Annexure P-2) submitted by the petitioners, in accordance with law.
2. Notice of motion.
3. Mr. Samir Rathour, learned Additional Public Prosecution, U.T. Chandigarh, accepts notice on behalf of respondents No.1 to 3 and assures that respondent No.2- Senior Superintendent of Police, Police SAURAV PATHANIA 2026.07.10 16:31 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document
CRWP-8029-2026 2 Headquaters, Sector 9-D, Chandigarh would look into the representation dated 15.06.2026 (Annexure P-2).
4. In view of the above, respondent No.2- Senior Superintendent of Police, Police Headquaters, Sector 9-D, Chandigarh is
directed to look into the representation and decide the same on the basis of threat perception felt by the petitioners and if the threat perception is found to be true then the protection as admissible in law shall be provided. In case, the concerned Officer is of the view that no protection is required, then a speaking order shall be passed and communicated to the petitioners.
5.
Disposed of.
6. Pending misc. application (s), if any, shall also stand
disposed of.
( VIRINDER AGGARWAL) JUDGE 09.07.2026 S. Pathania Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No Whether Reportable Yes/No
SAURAV PATHANIA 2026.07.10 16:31 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document