IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRM-M-41268-2024 (O&M) Date of decision : 25.02.2025 Paramjeet Kaur ...Petitioner Versus State of Punjab and others ...Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE MANISHA BATRA Present:- Mr. Onkar Singh Batalvi, Advocate and Mr. Harpreet Singh Sandhu, Advocate for the petitioner.

Ms. Ruchika Sabherwal, Sr. DAG, Punjab.

Mr. Dhawaljeet Dutta, Advocate for respondent No. 4.

MANISHA BATRA, J. (Oral)

1. The present petition has been filed under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 seeking directions to the official respondents to take appropriate legal action against the private respondents by registering an FIR as they had attacked upon the petitioner and threatened her and also tried to take forcible possession of her plot in connivance with respondent No. 4-who is SHO of the police Station concerned.

2. On 30.01.2025, the following order was passed by this Court in the present case:

“Brief facts of the case in hand are that the petitioner, who is in fact a senior citizen, is a widow and is living with her son. On 03.08.2024, respondents No. 5 to 8, namely Surjan Singh, Satnam Singh, Avtar Singh and Dilbagh Singh, along with some unknown persons had attacked upon the petitioner and her son by throwing bricks and stones and had also tried to take possession of the petitioner’s plot. The petitioner and her son somehow saved their life. On their call, the police had reached at the spot and had stopped the private respondents from taking forcible possession of the plot of the petitioner. Both the parties were called in the police station. However, since respondent No.4-Gurdev Singh, the then SHO of the Police Station Qadian was not available in the police station, they were called upon on 04.08.2024. However, on 04.08.2024 also, the private respondents started taking possession of the said plot by extending threats to the petitioner and his son. The petitioner and her son saved themselves by running inside the room. They called the police but no official reached at the spot. After some time, police officials visited the place of occurrence and instead of taking action against the private respondents, they took petitioner and her son to the police station, where they were made to sit till 6 PM. Repeated requests were made by the petitioner to take action against the private respondents but to no avail. The petitioner was constrained to give a complaint (Annexure P-1) to respondent No. 3-Senior Superintendent of Police, Batala on 05.08.2024 against the private respondents as well as respondent No. 4. When no action was taken on her complaint, she gave another complaint (Annexure P- 2) on 07.08.2024 to respondent No. 2-Director General of Police, Punjab as well as respondent No. 3. However, no action was taken thereon.

Reply on behalf of respondents No. 1 to 3 has been filed. A short reply on behalf of respondent No. 4 has also been filed. A joint reading of the same reveals that the complaints submitted by the petitioner were inquired into and the dispute between the parties was found to be of civil nature. Still, preventive action under Sections 126/170 of BNSS was taken by registering a Calandra, vide DDR No. 018 dated 06.09.2024. It has been claimed in both the replies that the petitioner has got recorded her statement (Annexure R-1/T) to the effect that she has filed the present petition on the asking of her counsel. She has never met respondent No. 4 and the present petition may be dismissed.

Vide order dated 02.12.2024, the petitioner and respondent No. 4 were directed to remain present before this Court in person. Today, both of them are present before this Court. With regard to her statement (Annexure R-1/T), the petitioner has categorically submitted before this Court that she has never given such statement. Rather, she was made to sign a blank paper by respondent No. 4. When respondent No. 4 is confronted with the same, he could not give any sati