Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Punjab and Haryana · body

2026 DAILYLAW 34282 (PNJ)

LAKHWINDER SINGH v. STATE OF PUNJAB AND ORS.

CRWP/8910/2026 · 2026-07-27

Shalini Singh Nagpal

body2026

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

1 CRWP-8910-2026 (O&M) IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AN D HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 123 CRWP-8910-2026 (O&M) Date of decision: 27.07.2026 LAKHWINDER SINGH PETITIONER VERSUS STATE OF PUNJAB AND OTHERS RESPONDENTS CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE SHALINI SINGH NAGPAL Present: Mr. Ashish Aggarwal, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Akash Yadav, AAG Punjab. *** Shalini Singh Nagpal, J. (Oral) 1. The petition under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India seeks following reliefs: i) Direction to respondents No.2 and 3 to protect the life and liberty of the petitioner and his family members from respondent No.4. ii) Direction to respondents no.2. and 3 to register FIR against the private respondent, in accordance with law. iii) Direction to respondents No.2 and 3 to conduct an expeditious and impartial probe into the complaint of the petitioner. iv) Direction to official respondents to decide representation dated 10.07.2026 (Annexure P-1), in accordance with law. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that respondent No.4, who was a craftsman working with the petitioner had been nursing grudge against him as petitioner refused to advance loan of ₹7,00,000/- to him. Respondent No.4 had started disrupting petitioner’s business and reputation and was extending threats. A representation in this regard was moved to respondent No.2-Commissioner of Police, Amritsar but no action was taken. 3. Notice of motion to the official respondents only. HARPREET SINGH CHAUHAN 2026.07.28 10:24 I agree to specified portions of this document 2 CRWP-8910-2026 (O&M) 4. Mr. Akash Yadav, AAG Punjab accepts notice on behalf of the official respondents and submits that petitioner’s representation (Annexure P-1) had been decided by the ACP-PBI and was consigned to the records on 18.07.2026 as no threat was perceived. 5. In view of the stance of the State, no directions are required to be issued. 6. The petition stands disposed of. 7. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, also stand disposed of. (SHALINI SINGH NAGPAL) JUDGE 27.07.2026 HS.CHAUHAN Whether Speaking/Reasoned : Yes/No Whether Reportable : Yes/No HARPREET SINGH CHAUHAN 2026.07.28 10:24 I agree to specified portions of this document