Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
Anoop Chitkara, J.
Mandeep Kaur - Appellant
Versus
State of Punjab & Anr. - Respondents
Criminal Miscellaneous Petition (M) No. 59389 of 2022
Decided On : 19-12-2022
Fair and Impartial Investigation - Petitioner Seeking Directions for Investigation
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, claiming to be an aggrieved person, sought fair and impartial investigation and approached the court for appropriate directions.
Finding of the Court:
The court directed the petitioner to make a representation to the concerned Senior Superintendent of Police/Commissioner of Police within two weeks. The representation, if filed within the stipulated time, would be decided within two months, and the petitioner was reserved the liberty to file a fresh petition or pursue other legal remedies. The court clarified that there was no adjudication on merits and that the order would not hinder the petitioner's interrogation in any cognizable case.
Issues: Seeking fair and impartial investigation, issuance of appropriate directions, representation to concerned authorities, liberty to file fresh petition or pursue other legal remedies, no adjudication on merits, and non-interference with petitioner's interrogation in any cognizable case.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the petitioner's right to seek fair and impartial investigation and directed the petitioner to make a representation to the concerned authorities within a specified time frame. The court also clarified that the order did not preclude the petitioner from pursuing other legal remedies or from being interrogated in any cognizable case.
Final Decision: The petition was allowed to the extent mentioned above, and all pending applications, if any, were disposed of.
JUDGMENT
Anoop Chitkara, J. - Seeking fair and impartial investigation, the petitioner, claiming to be an aggrieved person, has come up before this court seeking the issuance of appropriate directions.
2. Notices are served upon the official respondents through the State's counsel. Given the nature of the order that this Court proposes to pass, neither the response of official respondents nor the issuance of notices to the private respondents is required.
3. Let the petitioner make his representation to the concerned Senior Superintendent of Police/ Commissioner of Police, within two weeks from today. If the petitioner files a representation with in the above-mentioned time period of two weeks, then, the same shall be decided by the concerned Senior Superintendent of Police/ Commissioner of Police, within two months, either himself/herself or by authorizing and delegating it to any officer holding IPS cadre. It is clarified that such order must be a reasoned order, and the same be communicated to the representationists without delay.
4. Liberty reserved to the petitioner to file fresh petition or to take other legal remedies in accordance with the law.
5. It is clarified that there is no adjudication on merits. It is further clarified that this order shall not come in the way if the interrogation of the petitioner is required in any cognizable case.
6. There would be no need for a certified copy of this order, and any Advocate for the Petitioner and State can download this order and other relevant particulars from the official web page of this court and attest it to be a true copy. The concerned officer can also verify its authenticity and may download and use the downloaded copy for immediate use.
Petition is allowed to the extent mentioned above. All pending applications, if any, stand disposed.
The right to seek fair and impartial investigation, the petitioner's entitlement to make a representation to the concerned authorities, and the reservation of liberty to pursue other legal remedies.
The court emphasized the importance of a reasoned decision by the concerned Senior Superintendent of Police and clarified the scope of the order, reserving liberty for the petitioner to pursue other ....
The court emphasized the importance of fair and impartial investigation and upheld the petitioner's right to seek appropriate directions and pursue legal remedies without adjudication on merits.
The court emphasized the importance of a reasoned decision on the representation and clarified the limited scope of the order.
The court emphasized the importance of a reasoned decision by the concerned Superintendent of Police on the representation and clarified that there was no adjudication on merits.
Public authorities must respond timely to representations made to them, reinforcing procedural fairness and the right of individuals to receive decisions.
Administrative authorities are required to address pending representations promptly, ensuring compliance with relevant government directives.
Statutory authorities must address representations and cannot delay responses indefinitely, reinforcing the need for timely action.
The court has the authority to direct law enforcement agencies to address matters related to the protection of lives and liberty.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
