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.
The court concluded that “It is further stated in the reply that allegations in the petition that the official respondents are extending threat to the petitioners to withdraw the present petition or FIR registered against respondent No.9 are found to be baseless, as the petitioners have never come forward to join the inquiry. In view of the above, no further action is called for, in the present petition, and the same is disposed of.”