IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of Order:12.09.2025 T...XXXXX ..Petitioner Versus The State of Punjab and others ..Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE SHALINI SINGH NAGPAL Present: Mr. N.P.S.Hira, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. Hardeep Singh Wadhwa, DAG, Punjab.

Mr. P.S.Ahluwalia, Advocate Mr. Udaiveer Sidhu, Advocate Mr. Roshneel Singh Brar, Advocate for respondent no.4.

SHALINI SINGH NAGPAL , JUDGE The petition under Section 528 of Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, seeks following directions to the official respondents:-

(i) To arrest the accused in FIR No.77, dated 25.06.2025, under Section 354-A, 506 IPC and 8, 10, 21 of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012, Police Station Ranjit Avenue, District Amritsar;

(ii) to conduct fair and speedy investigation;

(iii) To protect life and liberty of the petitioner and her family members.

Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that FIR No.77, dated 25.06.2025, under Section 354-A, 506 IPC and 8, 10, 21 of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012, Police Station Ranjit Avenue, District Amritsar, was lodged on a complaint of the minor victim against respondents no.4 and 5 regarding the repeated sexual assaults by respondent no.4, paternal uncle of petitioner. He further submitted that respondent no.5, mother of the petitioner had been indirectly supporting the acts of respondent no.4. Initially, ZERO FIR was registered in Delhi, whereafter it was transferred to Police Station, Ranjit Avenue, District Amritsar. Police was protecting and shielding respondents no.4 and 5 and failed to arrest them. Respondents no.4 and 5 were extending threats to the victim and her family, pressurizing them to compromise the matter. Multiple complaints were made to senior police officials, but to no avail.

Status report had been filed on behalf of respondents no.l to 3, which learned counsel for respondents no.4 and 5, has adopted.

Learned State counsel submits that after registration of the FIR, initial investigation was conducted by Lady Sub Inspector Mandeep Kaur and the victim along with her father were joined in investigation, their statements were recorded and evidence produced by them was taken into police possession. He further submits later, on 09.07.2025, SIT headed by Ms. Parvinder Kaur, ADCP, Headquarters, Amritsar, had been constituted in the matter. During the course of investigation by SIT, evidence had been collected. Some sensitive material was produced before the Investigation Team which was being verified and further action would be taken after in depth scientific investigation. He further submits that since petitioner is resident of Jungpura Delhi, a letter was written to DCP, South East, District New Delhi by Commissioner of Police, Amritsar, for ensuring protection of her life and liberty. It is claimed that the investigation is being carried out in fair and partial manner by members of SIT and further action would be taken in accordance with law.

Learned counsel for respondents no.4 and 5, Sh. P.S.Ahluwalia, submits that respondent no.4 was husband of paternal aunt (Bua) of the petitioner while respondent no.5 was her mother. He submits that considering the sensitivity of the matter, the police had already constituted an SIT head by senior female police officer. Referring to the contents of the status report filed by State, it was pointed out that Narinder Singh, a relative of both the parties produced a pen drive containing two videos of father of the petitioner, the mobile phone in which the videos were recorded was also taken into police possession and statements of concerned witnesses had been recorded. It was submitted that the case was false and planted by father of the petitioner, who remained idle throughout his life. In fact, respondent no.4 and his wife had been looking after his expenses. The videos made over by Narinder Singh captured petitioner’s father proclaiming that petitioner was under his control and t