IN THE 109 Satnam Kaur and State of Punjab and CORAM : HON'BLE Present :- Mr. Mr. VINOD S. BHARDWAJ The Constitution of life and liberty further direction FIR No.243 dated 318(4) and 61 of Rajpura, District 2. Learned alongwith the private Dada Chauhan point of time, respondent respondent No.6 petitioner had paid deeds executed directly contended that illiteracy, dishonestly and thereafter fraudulently know about the THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AT CHANDIGARH CRWP-12645 Date of decision:15.01.2026 and another VERSUS and others HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD Mr. Mohd. Yousaf, Advocate for Mr. Supneet Singh, Advocate for the ***** BHARDWAJ, J. (Oral) The instant petition has been filed India for seeking directions to of the petitioners at the hands direction to respondents No.2 & 3 to take dated 22.11.2024 registered under of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, District Patiala. Learned counsel for the petitioners private respondents had carved out at Village Shamlo at Chandigarh respondent No.4 held a partnership No.6 was engaged as an employ paid the consideration to the landlord directly in the names of respondents the respondents, taking advantage dishonestly purchased the land in the fraudulently transferred the same. the same, she sought an explanation PUNJAB & HARYANA CHANDIGARH 12645-2025 (O&M) decision:15.01.2026 ...Petitioners ...Respondents VINOD S. BHARDWAJ the petitioner. filed under Article 226 of the respondent No.2 protect the hands of private respondents and take action on the case bearing under Sections 305A, 316(2), Sanhita, 2023 at Police Station City contends that the petitioners out a colony in the name of Chandigarh road and at the relevant partnership share of 10%, whereas employee. He contends that the landlord and had got several sale respondents No.4 and 6. It is further advantage of the petitioner’s the name of one Hoshiar Singh same. When the petitioner came to explanation whereupon she was SUMIT SINGH GUSAIN 2026.01.27 20:01 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 2 109 CRWP-12645-2025 (O&M) threatened by the respondents, who claimed to be in possession of several blank signed cheques and documents of the petitioner, which they threatened to misuse against her. Thereafter, the petitioners received a legal notice under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 and that further proceedings may have been initiated by the respondents by abusing the blank signed cheques. He further contends that the petitioner has been receiving threatening calls repeatedly from the private respondents, pressurizing her to compromise the matter. 3. Accordingly, a representation was submitted to the respondent- authorities. A prayer has now been made, by way of the instant petition, that official respondents be directed to extend the protection to the life and liberty of the petitioners. 4. I am afraid that the circumstances of the instant case, do not in any manner, disclose the existence of any real, imminent or tangible threat to the life or liberty of the petitioners. 5. Insofar as the proceedings having been initiated under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 are concerned, the remedy available to the petitioners lies in approaching the Trial Court and seeking appropriate relief, including the concession of bail, in accordance with law. Besides, it appears that the initiation of the present proceedings may be a pre-emptive attempt to carve out a defence in an inter se civil and commercial dispute between the parties. Such an endeavour may be to steal a march by approaching this Court at the first instance. The petition thus does not warrant interference for fear of being misused. In such circumstances, this Court deems it appropriate to refrain from commenting on the merits of the inter se dispute between the parties and to issue any SUMIT SINGH GUSAIN 2026.01.27 20:01 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 3 109 CRWP-12645-2025 (O&M) further directions to the respondent-authorities in favour of any of the parties. 6. Finding no tangible threat to the life and liberty of the petitioners, the present petition is dismissed. The petitioners may, if so advised, take recourse to efficacious alternative remedies as are available to them, in accordance with law. 7. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of. 15.01.2026 (VINOD S. BHARDWAJ) Sumit Gusain JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No Whether reportable : Yes/No SUMIT SINGH GUSAIN 2026.01.27 20:01 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document