Dalip Kaur vs State Of Punjab And Another
2023 Latest Caselaw 11309 P&H

2023:PHHC:097437

CRWP-7497-2023 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
(116)
CRWP-7497-2023
Date of Decision:-31.07.2023
Dalip Kaur
kesees Petitioner
Versus
State of Punjab and Anr.
beeees Respondents

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK JAIN

3h ok oR

Present: Mr. Karandeep Singh Sidhu, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. I.P.S. Sabharwal, DAG, Punjab.

3h 2k
ALOK JAIN, J. (Oral)

1. The present petition has been filed for issuance of writ in the

nature of mandamus inter alia praying for

(i) Protection of life and liberty of the petitioner and her family members including son of the petitioner, namely, Manohar Lal, who is confined in Central Jail Faridkot.

(ii) issuing direction to respondent No.2 to decide the representation moved by the petitioner dated 25.04.2023.

(iii) directing respondent No.2 not to falsely implicate son of the petitioner in any FIR without giving opportunity to join investigation of the inquiry relying upon the dicta passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in case titled as "Arnesh Kumar Vs. State of Bihar and Anr."

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted and admitted

that the son of the petitioner floated a company in the name of "Life Care

Estate India Ltd.", which was made for the investment purposes and due to 2024-08.03 14:42

I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

2023:PHHC:097437 CRWP-7497-2023 2

some fraud committed and financial exigency, the investment made by the general public was not returned, this led to the lodging of first FIR No.156/2018, under Section 420 of IPC, Police Station City Kotakpura, District Faridkot. Subsequent thereto, various investors in the State lodged various FIRs, as they had been cheated.

3. Learned State counsel, at this stage, submitted that, in fact the son of the petitioner has been convicted in one case FIR No.80 dated 16.12.2018, under Section 406 and 420 of IPC, registered at Police Station City Zira, Distt. Ferozepur for a period of 03 years with a fine of Rs.10,000/- and during his said conviction other FIRs have also been lodged against him.

4. After hearing learned counsel for the petitioner, at length, there is no threat perception to the life and liberty of the petitioner, and hence, the first prayer made in the present petition does not survive and the same is dismissed.

5. A perusal of the record shows that, in fact, this petition has been filed only to enable the son of the petitioner to get bail in other FIRs, which have been lodged against him. I do not find any merit in the present petition and a blanket direction cannot be issued restraining the police authorities not to lodge any FIR against the son of the petitioner.

6. At this stage, learned counsel for the petitioner prays for withdrawal of the third prayer and does not press upon the said judgment.

7. In light of the above, being devoid of merit, the present petition

stands dismissed.

(ALOK JAIN) JUDGE July 31, 2023 manju

Whether speaking/reasoned:- Yes/No Whether Reportable:- Yes/No

Manju

2023.08.03 14:42

I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document