FIR registered against respondents, are found to be baseless, as the petitioners have never come forward to join the inquiry.: High court of Punjab and Haryana
A petition was made in the form of a writ of mandamus under article 226,227 of the constitution of India, directing the official respondents to protect the life and liberty of the petitioners from respondents No.5 to 9. This judgment and final order were given in the high court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh on the 14thof July 2021 by Hon’ble Mr. Justice Arvind Singh Sangwan in the case of Sangeetha Devi and others vs. State of Punjab and others CRWP-2763-2020. The proceedings of the court were held through a video conference. The following are the facts of the case, petitioners No.1,2,3 belong to the same family, where no.2 and no.3 are brothers and no.1 is the wife of petitioner no.2. according to the case, in a firm called M.K. traders the petitioner No.2 was employed as the commission agent for respondents No.5 and 6, who were the owners of the firm. He however left the job in 2019, respondents No.5 and 6 failed to pay the petitioner his due amount, and when he demanded the money, respondents No. 5,6,8 entered the house of petitioner no.2 forcibly beat him up. Further petitioner no.2 was illegally detained at the police station and for which under CRWP-788-2019 was filed for a writ in the nature of habeas corpus for releasing petitioner no.2 however after the investigation the petitioner was found to be involved in the case under section 107,511 Cr.P.C. The deputy commissioner of police, a detective in the city of Amritsar stated that an inquiry was conducted based on the orders which were passed in CRWP-788-2019 regarding the custody of the petitioner No.2 and it was also stated that FIR No. 240 under section 343 IPC was registered against the respondent No. 9 at the police station, at Amritsar city he was placed under suspension by the commissioner of police and they made the necessary inquiry, further it was stated that respondent No.9 has also filed for an affidavit before the court, but the petitioners have failed to join the inquiry despite the notices issued by the inquiry officer, it was stated that the respondent No.9 was arrested in the same FIR. Again, a notice was issued under section 160 Cr.P.C. to the petitioners and petitioner No. 3 was contacted on his phone but the petitioner still neglected and failed to join the inquiry.
 on 15 07 In virtual CourtCRWP 2763 2020 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA ATCHANDIGARHCRWP 2763 2020 (O&M)Date of decision: 14.07.2021Sangeeta Devi and others... PetitionersVs.State of Punjab and others... RespondentsCORAM:HON BLE MR. JUSTICE ARVIND SINGH SANGWANPresent:None for the petitioners.Mr. Joginder Pal Ratra DAG Punjab.Mr. Chetan Bansal Advocatefor respondents No.5 & 6.Mr. Prateek Sodhi Advocatefor respondent No.9. ARVIND SINGH SANGWAN J. (ORAL)Prayer in this petition is for issuance of a writ of mandamusdirecting the official respondents to protect the lives and liberty of thepetitioners at the hands of respondents No.5 to 9.It is stated in the petition that petitioners No.2 & 3 are real brothersand petitioner No.1 wife of petitioner No.2. It is further stated that petitionerNo.2 was working in a firm namely M.K. Traders as commission agent forrespondents No.5 & 6 who are owners of the said firm and left the job inSeptember 2019. Some money of petitioner No.2 was due to be paid by on 15 07 In virtual CourtCRWP 2763 2020 2 respondents No.5 & 6 and in that regard when he demanded the money respondents No.5 & 6 along with respondent No.8 forcibly entered house ofpetitioner No.2 and gave him beatings. Thereafter petitioner No.2 was taken topolice station on 05.09.2019 and was kept in illegal detention for whichCRWP 788 2019 was filed praying for a writ in the nature of habeas corpus torelease petitioner No.2 in which a Warrant Officer was appointed and it wasfound that petitioner No.2 is involved in a case under Sections 107 511 Cr.P.C.Reply by way of affidavit of Deputy Commissioner of Police Detective Amritsar City is on record in which it is stated that in compliance ofthe orders dated 17.10.2019 and 25.11.2019 passed in aforesaid CRWP 788 2019 an inquiry was conducted regarding custody of petitioner No.2 and it wasstated that FIR No.240 dated 29.12.2019 under Section 342 IPC Police Station‘B’ Division Amritsar City was registered against respondent No.9 SILakhwinder Singh and he was placed under suspension by the Commissioner ofPolice Amritsar and departmental inquiry was entrusted to AssistantCommissioner of Police Special Crime Amritsar City. It is further stated thateven respondent No.9 has filed affidavit before this Court during pendency ofthe aforesaid CRWP 788 2019. It is also stated that the petitioners have notjoined the inquiry despite notices issued by the Inquiry Officer. It is next statedthat respondent No.9 SI Lakhwinder Singh was arrested in the aforesaid FIRand again notice under Section 160 Cr.P.C. was issued to the petitioners on08.01.2020 05.02.2020 and 22.02.2020. Petitioner No.3 was also contacted onhis mobile phone but the petitioners never joined the inquiry and not providedany evidence. It is further stated in the reply that allegations in the present on 15 07 In virtual CourtCRWP 2763 2020 3 petition that the official respondents are extending threat to the petitioners towithdraw the present petition or FIR registered against respondent No.9 arefound to be baseless as the petitioners have never come forward to join theinquiry.In view of the above no further action is called for in the presentpetition and the same is disposed of. [ ARVIND SINGH SANGWAN ]14.07.2021 JUDGEvishnuWhether speaking reasoned: Yes NoWhether Reportable: Yes No 