116 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of decision: 02.07.2025 Jogindro Bai ....Petitioner Versus State of Punjab and others ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARPREET SINGH BRAR Present: Mr. V.S. Kathpal, Advocate for the petitioner (through V.C.).

Mr. Subhash Godara, Addl.A.G., Punjab.

HARPREET SINGH BRAR, J. (ORAL)

The present criminal writ petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India read with Section 528 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 for issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus by directing respondents No.4 & 5 to protect the life and liberty of the petitioner and her family members at the hands of respondents No.6 to 8.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has sought direction to respondents No.3 and 4 to take action on the representations (Annexure P-1 and Annexure P-2) in a time bound manner on the ground that on 04.03.2025 at around 09:00 P.M., a police party came in two police vehicles and knocked the gate of the house of the petitioner. Further, 12-13 persons entered into the house of the petitioner and started searching the son of the petitioner, namely, Paramjit Singh. The petitioner informed the police party that her son has gone to beas. 3-4 persons were in the civil dress accompanying the police party and two of the police officials were identified by younger son of the petitioner. The police party has entered the house of the petitioner without any warrant or without any member of the panchayat or village headman and snatched the phone from her daughter who was making video of the entire incident. The police party has also removed the DVR of the CCTV footage and they threatened and slapped the daughter of the petitioner and extended threats that in case, the petitioner reports the matter, she will be implicated in a false case. As such, the petitioner apprehends that she and her family members would be implicated in a false case and in this regard representation dated 05.03.2025 (Annexure P-1) was given to the higher police officials. Thereafter, a police party again raided the house of the petitioner and given beatings and harassed her family members, as such, the petitioner has given another representation dated 08.03.2025 (Annexure P-2). The petitioner is constrained to approach this Court as inaction of the jurisdictional police is violating the fundamental right of the petitioner and her family members and thus, the petitioner has approached this Court to save her life and liberty as well as her family members.

The learned State counsel, on instructions from ASI Radhey Shyam, submits that the police party was making a routine checks for interception of suspected persons dealing in narcotics and son of the petitioner is also under grave suspicion. The police party is merely performing its official duties. There is no MLR or any other corroborative material annexed with the present petition. In fact, four months have elapsed since the alleged incident and the apprehension raised by the petitioner appears to be fanciful. Hence, the present petition is devoid of merit. Furthermore, the petitioner has failed to explain why this Court has been approached directly without first availing the remedy before the jurisdictional Court.

Having heard learned counsel for the parties and after perusing the record of the case with their able assistance, this Court finds no force in the arguments advanced on behalf of the petitioner.

A two Judge Bench of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Sakiri Vasu Vs. State of U.P. and others, (2008) 2 SCC 409 has held that the Magistrate has been bestowed with all necessary powers to ensure proper investigation under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. Discouraging the practice of approaching the High Court for redressal of grievances like non-registration of FIR or improper investigation, Justice Markandey Katju made the following observations:

“27. As we have already observed above, the Magistrate has very wide