IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of Order: 02.12.2025 Gurmeet Kaur alias Ashmeet ...Petitioner Versus State of Punjab and others ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE SHALINI SINGH NAGPAL Present: Mr. Karan Monga, Advocate and Ms. Lovepreet Handa, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. Hardeep Singh Wadhwa, DAG, Punjab SHALINI SINGH NAGPAL, JUDGE

1. The petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, has been filed, seeking the following reliefs:-

(i) Direction to official respondent no.2 to protect life and liberty of the petitioner from private respondents no.4 to

10;

(ii) Direction to official respondent no.2 to take action against private respondents no.4 to 10;

(iii) Direction to official respondent no.2 to decide representation dated 25.08.2025 (Annexure P-3) moved by the petitioner.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner was working in real estate at Mohali and in January, 2024, she met respondent no.4-Manoj Kumar @ Arun Kumar with regard to work. Thereafter, they started conversation about work. Manoj proposed marriage but she refused. After some time, Manoj Kumar again spoke to her on phone about marriage. Manoj Kumar introduced her to his parents, sister and brother-in-law.

Petitioner fell in love with Manoj Kumar. One day, Manoj Kumar called petitioner to meet him in his flat and forcibly made physical relations with her. When petitioner insisted for marriage, he stopped talking to her, abused and threatened her with dire consequences. On 05.04.2025, Manoj Kumar took petitioner on the pretext of marriage and made physical relations with her repeatedly. Petitioner moved a complaint against respondents no.4 to 10 in the women cell but to no avail.

3. Status report by way of affidavit of Deputy Superintendent of Police, City-2, SAS Nagar (Mohali), has been filed in court today, which is taken on record. Learned State counsel submits that an inquiry was conducted in the matter by the office of Deputy Superintendent of Police and statements of parties were recorded. He submits that Manoj Kumar and his family members were ready to solemnize marriage with the petitioner but she had refused. With regard to the allegations of threats to the complainant, Kalander under Section 107/150 Cr.P.C., 126/169 Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 was registered and no further action was required in the matter. The representation of the petitioner was also disposed of accordingly.

4. In Sakiri Vasu vs. State of U.P. and others, (2008) 2 SCC 409, Hon'ble Supreme Court observed as under:-

“11. In this connection we would like to state that if a person has a grievance that the police station is not registering his FIR under Section 154 Cr.P.C., then he can approach the Superintendent of Police under Section 154(3) Cr.P.C. by an application in writing. Even if that does not yield any satisfactory result in the sense that either the FIR is still not registered, or that even after registering it no proper investigation is held, it is open to the aggrieved person to file an application under Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C. before the learned Magistrate concerned. If such an application under Section 156 (3) is filed before the Magistrate, the Magistrate can direct the FIR to be registered and also can direct a proper investigation to be made, in a case where, according to the aggrieved person, no proper investigation was made. The Magistrate can also under the same provision monitor the investigation to ensure a proper investigation.”

5. In Sudhir Bhaskarrao Tambe v. Hemant Yashwant Dhage and others, (2016) 6 SCC 277, Hon'ble Supreme Court observed as under:-

“2. This Court has held in Sakiri Vasu v. State of U.P., that if a person has a grievance that his FIR has not been registered by the police, or having been registered, proper investigation is not being done, then the remedy of the aggrieved person is not to go to the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, but to approach the Ma