CRWP-8667 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT (117) SUNIL RELIA STATE OF PUNJAB AND OTHERS CORAM: Present: ALOK JAIN, J. (Oral) 1. of the Constitution of India seeking issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the official respondents to protect the life and liberty of the petitioner at the hands of the private respondents. 2. respondents threatened the life and liberty of the petitioner on 14.02.2026 and thereafter also sent WhatsApp messages on 23.06.2026 extending similar threats. On this basis, it is prayed that appropriate directions be issued to the official respo 3. petitioner has pleaded that he had initially approached the office of respondent No.4 and orally requested redressal of his grievance and, wh no action was taken, submitted a representation dated 25.06.2026 to respondents No.2 and 3. However, Annexures P substantiate the said averments. There is nothing on record to indicate that -1- 8667-2026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH SUNIL RELIA Versus STATE OF PUNJAB AND OTHERS HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK JAIN **** Mr.H.S. Sidhu, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Amandeep Singh Samra, AAG, Punjab. **** ALOK JAIN, J. (Oral) The present petition has been filed under Articles 226 and 227 Constitution of India seeking issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the official respondents to protect the life and liberty of the petitioner at the hands of the private respondents. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the respondents threatened the life and liberty of the petitioner on 14.02.2026 and thereafter also sent WhatsApp messages on 23.06.2026 extending similar threats. On this basis, it is prayed that appropriate directions be issued to the official respondents to provide protection to the petitioner. A perusal of paragraph 7 of the writ petition reveals that the petitioner has pleaded that he had initially approached the office of respondent No.4 and orally requested redressal of his grievance and, wh no action was taken, submitted a representation dated 25.06.2026 to respondents No.2 and 3. However, Annexures P substantiate the said averments. There is nothing on record to indicate that IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRWP-8667-2026 Date of Decision:- 22.07.2026 ……Petitioner ……Respondents ALOK JAIN Mr.H.S. Sidhu, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Amandeep Singh Samra, AAG, Punjab. The present petition has been filed under Articles 226 and 227 Constitution of India seeking issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the official respondents to protect the life and liberty of the petitioner at the hands of the private respondents. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the private respondents threatened the life and liberty of the petitioner on 14.02.2026 and thereafter also sent WhatsApp messages on 23.06.2026 extending similar threats. On this basis, it is prayed that appropriate directions be ndents to provide protection to the petitioner. A perusal of paragraph 7 of the writ petition reveals that the petitioner has pleaded that he had initially approached the office of respondent No.4 and orally requested redressal of his grievance and, when no action was taken, submitted a representation dated 25.06.2026 to respondents No.2 and 3. However, Annexures P-1 and P-2 do not substantiate the said averments. There is nothing on record to indicate that 22.07.2026 ……Petitioner ……Respondents The present petition has been filed under Articles 226 and 227 Constitution of India seeking issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the official respondents to protect the life and liberty private respondents threatened the life and liberty of the petitioner on 14.02.2026 and thereafter also sent WhatsApp messages on 23.06.2026 extending similar threats. On this basis, it is prayed that appropriate directions be A perusal of paragraph 7 of the writ petition reveals that the petitioner has pleaded that he had initially approached the office of en no action was taken, submitted a representation dated 25.06.2026 to 2 do not substantiate the said averments. There is nothing on record to indicate that MANJU 2026.07.24 11:34 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRWP-8667 the petitioner ever approached respondent No.4 authority before invoking the extraordinary writ jurisdiction of this Court. Rather, it appears that the petitioner has approached this Court without first availing the ordinary remedy available to him. Furthermore, learned counsel for there is also a video recording in support of the allegations; however, the same has also not been placed on record. 4. the parties essentially arises out of a monetary transaction. As per the petitioner's own case, an amount is recoverable by him from the private respondents, who have allegedly failed to repay the same. Prima facie, therefore, the controversy appears to be civil threat, unsupported by any cogent material and without first approaching the competent police authorities, cannot be permitted to convert a purely civil dispute into a matter warranting exercise of the extraordinary writ jurisdiction of this Court. 5. does not find any ground to invoke its extraordinary jurisdiction under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India. 6. is dismissed. July 22, 2026 manju Whether speaking/reasoned: Whether Reportable: -2- 8667-2026 the petitioner ever approached respondent No.4 authority before invoking the extraordinary writ jurisdiction of this Court. Rather, it appears that the petitioner has approached this Court without first availing the ordinary remedy available to him. Furthermore, learned the petitioner, during the course of arguments, submitted that there is also a video recording in support of the allegations; however, the same has also not been placed on record. Apart from the above, this Court finds that the dispute between ties essentially arises out of a monetary transaction. As per the petitioner's own case, an amount is recoverable by him from the private respondents, who have allegedly failed to repay the same. Prima facie, therefore, the controversy appears to be civil threat, unsupported by any cogent material and without first approaching the competent police authorities, cannot be permitted to convert a purely civil dispute into a matter warranting exercise of the extraordinary writ diction of this Court. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, this Court does not find any ground to invoke its extraordinary jurisdiction under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India. Accordingly, finding no merit in the pres is dismissed. July 22, 2026 Whether speaking/reasoned:- Yes/No Whether Reportable:- Yes/No the petitioner ever approached respondent No.4 or any local police authority before invoking the extraordinary writ jurisdiction of this Court. Rather, it appears that the petitioner has approached this Court without first availing the ordinary remedy available to him. Furthermore, learned the petitioner, during the course of arguments, submitted that there is also a video recording in support of the allegations; however, the Apart from the above, this Court finds that the dispute between ties essentially arises out of a monetary transaction. As per the petitioner's own case, an amount is recoverable by him from the private respondents, who have allegedly failed to repay the same. Prima facie, therefore, the controversy appears to be civil in nature. Mere allegation of threat, unsupported by any cogent material and without first approaching the competent police authorities, cannot be permitted to convert a purely civil dispute into a matter warranting exercise of the extraordinary writ In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, this Court does not find any ground to invoke its extraordinary jurisdiction under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India. Accordingly, finding no merit in the present petition, the same (ALOK JAIN) JUDGE or any local police authority before invoking the extraordinary writ jurisdiction of this Court. Rather, it appears that the petitioner has approached this Court without first availing the ordinary remedy available to him. Furthermore, learned the petitioner, during the course of arguments, submitted that there is also a video recording in support of the allegations; however, the Apart from the above, this Court finds that the dispute between ties essentially arises out of a monetary transaction. As per the petitioner's own case, an amount is recoverable by him from the private respondents, who have allegedly failed to repay the same. Prima facie, in nature. Mere allegation of threat, unsupported by any cogent material and without first approaching the competent police authorities, cannot be permitted to convert a purely civil dispute into a matter warranting exercise of the extraordinary writ In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, this Court does not find any ground to invoke its extraordinary jurisdiction under ent petition, the same MANJU 2026.07.24 11:34 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document