Punjab-Haryana High Court
Jagjit Singh Chawla vs State Of Punjab & Ors on 30 September, 2024
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:133237
IN THE PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT AT
CHANDIGARH
203-1 CWP-4277-2016 (O&M)
JAGJIT SINGH CHAWLA (SINCE DECEASED)
THROUGH LRs.
... Petitioner(s)
VERSUS
STATE OF PUNJAB AND OTHERS
... Respondents
AND
203-2 CRWP-1135-2020
Date of Decision: 30.09.2024
JASDEEP SINGH AND ANOTHER
... Petitioners
VERSUS
STATE OF PUNJAB AND OTHERS
... Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD S. BHARDWAJ.
Present: Ms. Jasneet Mehra, Advocate
for the petitioners in both cases.
Mr. Aditya Sharda, DAG, Punjab.
Mr. A.K. Khunger, Advocate
for respondents No.7 to 9 in CWP-4277-2016.
****
VINOD S. BHARDWAJ, J. (ORAL)
With the consent of counsel for the respective parties both the
petitions are being decided by a common order. Facts, for the facility of
reference are, however, extracted from CWP-4277-2016 titled Jagjit Singh
Chawla versus State of Punjab and others.
Prayer in the said petition is for directing the respondents No.2 to 4
to initiate inquiry and to take action as per law against respondents No. 7 to 9
1 of 18
::: Downloaded on – 27-10-2024 12:09:01 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:133237
CWP-4277-2016 & CRWP-1135-2020 -2-
for taking and demanding bribe from the petitioner by threatening to implicate
him and his family members in false criminal case.
Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner is a
crusader against corruption and has prepared a video CD of 14 corrupt police
officials of Ludhiana, who are facing trials under Section 7, 11 and 12 of the
Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 before the Special Court. She submits that
all the said accused persons, in collusion with their superiors, had tried their
level best to close the evidence of prosecution, without leading any evidence.
The petitioner approached this Court by filing CRM-M-15929 of 2014 for
seeking issuance of directions from this Court to the trial Court to secure the
presence of the witnesses which was allowed vide order dated 05.02.2015. She
contends that the witnesses were threatened by the police officials and the
petitioner was pressurized to withdraw the case bearing FIR No.168 of 2003 by
booking him in DDR No.12 on 12.05.2015 under Section 110 Cr.P.C. It is also
alleged that an FIR No.10 dated 14.01.2012 was also registered at Police
Station Division No.6, Ludhiana against the son of the petitioner for the offence
punishable under Section 15/61/85 of the NDPS Act, 1985 by Sub Inspector
Shiv Kumar, who was officiating Station House Officer at that point of time
merely because the son of the petitioner lodged an FIR No.134 in the year 2009
in Police Station Division No.6, Ludhiana implicating the police officials. It is
pointed out that the son of the petitioner was acquitted in the said case by the
Special Court at Ludhiana vide order/judgment dated 07.08.2015 and a finding
was given by the Special Court that the son of the petitioner had been falsely
implicated due to initiation of proceedings against the police official. A
2 of 18
::: Downloaded on – 27-10-2024 12:09:02 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:133237
CWP-4277-2016 & CRWP-1135-2020 -3-
representation was thereafter submitted by the son of the petitioner to
respondent No.2- Director General of Police, Punjab, Chandigarh but as no
action has been taken thereupon, he approached this Court again for seeking
issuance of directions to respondent No.2 to take action against respondents
No.3 to 7 for falsely implicating the son of the petitioner in the abovesaid FIR.
The said CRM-M-36644 of 2015 was disposed of by this Court vide order dated
28.10.2015 directing the respondents to take a decision on the representation
submitted by the son of the petitioner. It is averred that the abovesaid direction
further enraged the police officials even though no further action was taken and
rather, the police officials started taking steps to further harass the father of the
petitioner under different offences. COCP No.1372 of 2015 was also filed by
the petitioner before this Court in which the erring police officials were
summoned. The petitioner thereafter approached this Court espousing his
grievance that despite submission of complaint against 14 police officials of
Ludhiana, no action has been taken and instead pressure is being put upon the
petitioner for effecting a compromise, failing which he alongwith his family
members shall be implicated in false and frivolous cases. He thus filed another
petition, apprehending false implication, bearing No.38193 of 2015 with a
prayer that a prior notice under Section 160 of the Cr.P.C. be given to him in
case he is required in relation to any criminal proceedings. The said CRM-M-
38193 of 2015 was disposed of by this Court vide order dated 06.11.2015
directing the respondents that in the event of any criminal case being filed or
registered against the petitioner, wherein his presence would be required, an
advance notice of one week under Section 160 Cr.P.C. shall be served upon
3 of 18
::: Downloaded on – 27-10-2024 12:09:02 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:133237
CWP-4277-2016 & CRWP-1135-2020 -4-
him. She further contends that after passing of the said order, the respondents
started further harassing the petitioner and started demanding more money on
the pretext that a Calendra under Section 110 of Cr.P.C. shall be issued against
the petitioner for declaring him as BC (Bad Character), in case the illegal
gratification is not given by him. The petitioner thereafter acceded to their
demand and paid huge sums of money for saving his skin from the wrath of
police. A Compact Disk (CD) was, however, prepared by the petitioner wherein
the respondents are seen receiving illegal gratification from them. It is
contended that despite the directions issued by this Court in CRM-M-38193 of
2015, the petitioner was arrested without notice and an FIR No.13 dated
31.01.2016 was registered against him under Sections 294-A and 420 of the
IPC read with Section 13-A of the Public Gambling Act, 1867 at Police Station
Division No.6, Ludhiana. A separate proceeding for the same has been initiated
by the petitioner. It is on account of such multifarious litigation between the
petitioner and the police officials, he has approached this Court for seeking
initiation of inquiry against the police officials and for proper investigation into
the matter.
Reply by way of short affidavit of G. Nageswara Rao, IPS,
Director, Vigilance Bureau, Punjab, Chandigarh has been filed on behalf of
respondent No.3. A status report dated 28.11.2017 has also been placed on
record, wherein it has been averred that a number of criminal cases have been
registered against the petitioner relating to cheating, gambling, lotteries,
robbery, extortion, trespassing, hurting, murder and assault against police
officials and in some cases, he has been acquitted while he has been convicted
4 of 18
::: Downloaded on – 27-10-2024 12:09:02 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:133237
CWP-4277-2016 & CRWP-1135-2020 -5-
in some other cases and some of them are still pending. The details of the said
cases, as per the abovesaid status report, is given hereinafter below:
Sr. Particulars Present Status
No.
1. FIR No.41 dated 12.06.2001 u/s Acquitted 10.11.2008
302/120 IPC PS Dehlon Ludhiana
2. FIR No.05 dated 06.01.2017 u/s 12 Under Investigation
PC Act PS Division No.7 Ludhiana
3. FIR No.43 dated 12.06.2001 u/s Under Investigation
302/120 IPC PS Dehlon Ludhiana
4. FIR No.28 dated 05.02.2017 u/s 12 Under Investigation
FPC Act 192/193, PS Jamalpur
Ludhiana
5. FIR No.232 dated 18.06.1989 Convicted 23.12.1989
Under Excise Act PS Division No.6
Ludhiana
6. FIR No.159 dated 10.07.1996 u/s Acquitted 08.01.1998
324/326/34/120-B IPC, PS
Division No.6, Ludhiana.
7. FIR No.16 dated 03.02.1998 u/s Acquitted 06.03.2002
153-A/120-B IPC, PS Division
No.6, Ludhiana.
8. FIR No.21 dated 15.01.1999 u/s Acquitted 30.08.2005
384/506/120B/420 IPC PS Division
No.6, Ludhiana.
9. FIR No.132 dated 22.04.1999 u/s Under Trial
382/454/506/452 IPC PS Division
No.6, Ludhiana.
10. FIR No.144/1999 u/s 311/420/ Acquitted 22.12.2007
506/342/511 IPC PS Division No.6,
Ludhiana.
11. FIR No.144 of 2001 dated Convicted 21.09.2009
22.05.2001 u/s 382/325/506/
148/149 IPC PS Division No.6,
Ludhiana.
12. FIR No.454 dated 05.11.2001 Acquitted 25.09.2007
under Gambling Act & IPC PS
Division No.6, Ludhiana.
13. FIR No.67 dated 13.02.2003 u/s Fine Rs.500/- on
Gambling Act, PS Division No.6, 04.12.2016
Ludhiana.
14. FIR No.68 dated 13.02.2003 u/s Under Trial
353/186 IPC, PS Division No.6,
Ludhiana.
5 of 18
::: Downloaded on - 27-10-2024 12:09:02 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:133237
CWP-4277-2016 & CRWP-1135-2020 -6-
15. FIR No.221 dated 06.06.2003 u/s Acquitted 21.10.2011
Gambling Act PS Division No.6,
Ludhiana.
16. FIR No.12 dated 14.01.2008 u/s Acquitted 30.04.2008
323/341/506/34 IPC, PS Division
No.6, Ludhiana.
17. FIR No.17 dated 12.11.2008 u/s Under Trial
Gambling Act, PS Division No.6,
Ludhiana.
18. FIR No.9 dated 14.01.2012 u/s Under Trial
Gambling Act, PS Division No.6,
Ludhiana.
19. FIR No.163 dated 23.11.2013 u/s Under Trial
Gambling Act, PS Division No.6,
Ludhiana.
20. FIR No.145 dated 02.11.2014 u/s Under Trial
382/323/427/34, PS Division No.6,
Ludhiana.
21. FIR No.118 dated 09.07.1993 u/s Acquitted 10.01.1995
Gambling Act, PS Sadar Ludhiana.
22. FIR No.158 dated 15.12.2014 u/s Convicted & fined with
Gambling Act, PS Division No.6, amount of Rs.500/-
Ludhiana.
23. FIR No.168/2003 dated 24.04.2003 Under Trial
u/s PC Act, PS Division No.6,
Ludhiana.
24. FIR No.173 dated 02.10.2015 u/s Under Trial
294-A, 420 IPC 7(3) Lottery Act,
PS Division No.6, Ludhiana.
25. FIR No.13 dated 31.01.2016 u/s Under Trial
294/420/120-B IPC and Lottery
Act, PS Division No.6, Ludhiana.
26. FIR No.245 dated 06.03.2003 u/s Acquitted 12.03.2008
452/323/324 SC/ST Act PS
Haibowal, Ludhiana
27. FIR No.230 dated 05.09.1994 u/s Convicted 16.12.1994
Gambling Act, PS Division No.6,
Ludhiana.
28. FIR No.31 dated 04.03.2003 u/s Under Trial
336/427/447/506/511, PS Division
No.6, Ludhiana.
29. FIR No.46 dated 29.03.2003 u/s Under Trial
294-A/420/120-B IPC and Lottery
Act, PS Division No.6, Ludhiana.
6 of 18
::: Downloaded on - 27-10-2024 12:09:02 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:133237
CWP-4277-2016 & CRWP-1135-2020 -7-
It was reported that on account of involvement of the petitioner in
a large number of cases, the proceedings under Section 110 Cr.P.C. had been
initiated and the petitioner had been released on a probation bond with a
condition to maintain peace and not to commit further offence for a period of
one year i.e. from 30.11.2015 to 30.11.2016. Response about registration of FIR
No.10 dated 14.01.2012 under Section 15 of the NDPS Act, at Police Station
Division No.6 has also been given in the abovesaid report and submitted that
the acquittal of the petitioner’s son was on account of the fact that the
prosecution was not able to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt against him.
Hence, a benefit of doubt was extended to him but it was not held to be a false
case having been foisted upon the son of the petitioner.
Details of various other FIRs, that had been registered against the
petitioner, had also been given in the aforesaid report submitted by the Director,
Vigilance Bureau, Punjab, Chandigarh and it was pointed out that insofar as the
issue of demand and acceptance of bribe money by the police officials is
concerned, a notice under Section 160 Cr.P.C. was sent to the petitioner
requiring him to appear in the office of the Director, Vigilance Bureau, Punjab,
Chandigarh along with the audio/video recordings or any other evidence qua
acceptance of bribe money. A request was received by the Director, Vigilance
Bureau, Punjab, Chandigarh from the petitioner that he was suffering from liver
problem for the last one year and is under treatment for the same. It was
informed by him that the documents can be collected from Shri Amandeep
Singh, Advocate having mobile No.99149-28302. The said advocate was also
contacted by the DSP, Vigilance Bureau, Ludhiana, whereupon he replied that
7 of 18
::: Downloaded on – 27-10-2024 12:09:02 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:133237
CWP-4277-2016 & CRWP-1135-2020 -8-
he is not in possession of such documents/evidence and that he can provide the
copy of the said CD only after obtaining the same from the Court. Hence, the
CD, on which reliance has been placed by the petitioner, has never been made
available to the Director, Vigilance Bureau, Punjab, Chandigarh. It was
submitted that in the event of the CD having been provided, two months’ more
time may be granted so as to verify the same and for submission of complete
and final status report.
A short reply by way of affidavit of Jaswinder Singh, PPS, DSP,
Vigilance Bureau, Ludhiana Range dated 22.01.2018 was also filed in
compliance with the order dated 29.11.2017, whereby the petitioner had been
directed by this Court to appear before the officer to be nominated by the
Commissioner of Police, Ludhiana on 05.12.2017 at 11.00 a.m. sharp and
supply all information/compact disc in support of allegations levelled in the
petition and further proceedings were ordered to be apprised. It has been
specifically averred in the abovesaid affidavit that the petitioner did not appear
before the SIT on 05.12.2017 to hand over the CD but sent a CD by post which
was received in the Litigation Branch, CPO, Ludhiana on 06.12.2017. When an
attempt was made to examine the said CD, the data regarding the allegations
levelled in the petition was not completely audible and visible. A request was
again sent to the petitioner to appear in person and supply the original CD but it
was reported that the petitioner had expired by that time and the attested copy
of the death certificate of the petitioner was also attached alongwith the
abovesaid affidavit.
8 of 18
::: Downloaded on – 27-10-2024 12:09:02 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:133237
CWP-4277-2016 & CRWP-1135-2020 -9-
A reply dated 10.02.2020 on behalf of respondents No.1 and 2 has
also been filed by way of an affidavit of Waryam Singh, PPS, Assistant
Commissioner of Police, Central Ludhiana, wherein the abovementioned details
were specifically mentioned and it was pointed out that the petitioner did not
submit the evidence pertaining to the original CD or the source thereof with the
Investigating Agency despite having been notified about the same and
notwithstanding the directions issued by this Court. Hence, the allegations
levelled in the present petition could not be verified.
A separate short reply way of affidavit of ASI Sohan Lal, Police
Station Division No.6, Ludhiana has also been filed on behalf of respondent
No.7 to 9, wherein it has been averred that as many as 25 FIRs had been
registered against the petitioner. Further, the details have also been given with
respect to the 17 FIRs that had been registered against the petitioner and he was
already convicted in four FIRs while nearly 13 FIRs were pending against him.
Despite the matter being pending before this Court since 2016 and
the abovesaid affidavits and replies having been filed by the official
respondents long ago, no replication/rejoinder controverting the same has been
filed by the petitioner. There is no response also to the specific affidavit filed by
the respondent authorities that the petitioner did not turn up to hand over the
original CD for verification of the allegations levelled in the present petition
notwithstanding the orders passed by this Court. Even the said aspect remain
undisputed and undenied. The only response was that Jagjit Singh Chawla has
passed away. There is no such other satisfactory explanation giving the reasons
for non-submission of the requisite proof which he claimed to have been
9 of 18
::: Downloaded on – 27-10-2024 12:09:02 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:133237
CWP-4277-2016 & CRWP-1135-2020 -10-
appended alongwith the present petition, so as to verify the claim made by the
petitioner about any demand being allegedly made from him.
Under the given circumstances, I am of the opinion that in view of
the undisputed and undenied position of fact as depicted by the respondents and
the matter having already been examined by the office of Director, Vigilance
Bureau, Punjab, Chandigarh and the persistent failure of the petitioner to
provide the necessary documents/proofs, no further directions can be issued in
the present petition.
The present petition is accordingly dismissed.
The petitioner may, if so advised, take recourse to the alternative
remedies for seeking redressal of his grievances.
CRWP-1135-2020
The present petition has been filed by the petitioners for seeking
directions to the respondent to protect the life and liberty and also to provide
adequate security to the petitioners as they are the whistle blowers against the
police officials.
The instant petition is in continuation of the proceedings that had
been instituted by the father of the petitioners against the police officials. It is
on account of the said history of litigation inter se between the petitioners and
the police officials that the present petition has been filed by the petitioners for
seeking protection to their lives and liberties.
Reply way of affidavit of Vaibhav Sehgal, PPS, Assistant
Commissioner of Police, Industrial Area-A, Ludhiana has been filed on behalf
of the respondents, wherein it was averred as under:
10 of 18
::: Downloaded on – 27-10-2024 12:09:02 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:133237
CWP-4277-2016 & CRWP-1135-2020 -11-
“1. That the entire petition is engulfed with wrong version of
facts. On 25.08.2019, ASI Dhanwant Singh alongwith other police
employees was present Near Akai Hospital, Chandigarh Road,
Ludhiana in connection with patrolling duty when he received a
secret information, that petitioner no.2 and his three accomplices
are gambling with Playing Cards at Fitness Villa, Kirti Nagar,
Ludhiana and if raid is conducted, then petitioner no.2 and his
three other accomplices can be apprehended while gambling.
Accordingly FIR No.223 dated 25.08.2019, u/s 13/3/67 of Punjab
Gambling Act, P.S. Moti Nagar, Ludhiana was registered against
petitioner no.2 and his three accomplices. Thereafter raid was
conducted in a house situated opposite to Tikoni Park, Kirti Nagar,
Ludhiana. During the raid, petitioner no.2 and his three
accomplices namely Gaurav, Jasvir Singh and Harpreet Singh
were apprehended while gambling. 52 Playing Cards and cash of
Rs.59,000/- was also recovered from petitioner no.2 and his co-
accused. During the investigation, It transpired that the said house
was in the name of the deceased father of petitioner no.2 and now
the said house was being used for the purpose of gambling only.
therefore offences u/s 3, 4 of the Gambling Act was also added on
25.08.2019. After completion of the Investigation, Challan/Final
Report u/s 173 Cr.P.C. has also been presented against petitioner
no.2 and his co- accused before the Ld. Trial Court on 23.10.2019
and now they are facing the trial. Hence, the present petition is
liable to be dismissed on this ground alone.
2. That, however, on 12.07.2018, one Deepak Kumar alias
Jhurli had made a statement with the police levelling allegations
that on 12.07.2018 at 06.30 PM, the said complainant alongwith
the present petitioners were playing cricket at Palm City Colony,
Kohara and in the meantime, two youngsters of 20/22 years of age
came on a motorcycle and one of them fired a gunshot at the said
11 of 18
::: Downloaded on – 27-10-2024 12:09:02 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:133237
CWP-4277-2016 & CRWP-1135-2020 -12-
complainant which crossed near his ear and they ran from the
spot. When the complainant followed the said person, then they
also fired another shot which was missed. Accordingly FIR No.166
dated 17.07.2018, u/s 307, 511, 506 IPC and 25/54/59 of Arms
Act, P.S. Jamalpur, Ludhiana was registered against unknown
persons. Further investigation is being conducted.
However, petitioner no.1 further made a statement with the
police that on 17.07.2018 he had received a threatening phone call
from one Mobile No.98554-22659 and the person calling from the
other side proclaimed himself to be the person who had fired at the
said complainant and threatened petitioner no.1 that his brother
petitioner no.2 has been saved as the complainant came in front
and if petitioner no.1 wants his brother i.e. petitioner no.2, then
petitioner no.1 has to pay for the life of petitioner no.2. That
unknown person further threatened that next time bullet will be
fired at the forehead of your brother. Accordingly the call details
of the said phone number 98554-22659 was obtained which was of
one person namely Lovepreet Singh, R/o Amritsar. Accordingly the
said Lovepreet Singh was joined in the investigation during which
he stated that some unknown persons had snatched his mobile
phone and the said threatening call had been made to petitioner
no.1. Apart from it, various other suspected persons were also
joined in the investigation but their involvement was not found in
the crime. However, efforts are being made to find out the persons
who had attacked at the said complainant and made the
threatening call.
However, as the present petitioners are residing within the
jurisdiction of P.S. Division No.7, Ludhiana, therefore the then
ACP has written a Letter No.974-976-5A/ACP dated 21.07.2018 to
the ACP (East), Ludhiana to ensure the protection of the
petitioners. Accordingly the ACP (East), Ludhiana has issued a
12 of 18
::: Downloaded on – 27-10-2024 12:09:02 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:133237
CWP-4277-2016 & CRWP-1135-2020 -13-
Letter No.632-5A/ACP. East dated 24.07.2018 to the SHO, P.S.
Division No.7, Ludhiana and further SHO, P.S. Division No.7,
Ludhiana vide his Letter No.200/5A dated 21.08.2018 has directed
the motorcycle employees of the Police Control Room of the
residential area of the petitioners to take a regular round to the
house of the petitioners. Apart from it, the patrolling parties of
Police Station Division No.7, Ludhiana have also been directed to
keep a special vigil at the residence of the petitioners. Phone
numbers of the concerned SHO, ACP as well as that of the Police
Control Room have been given to the petitioners and they have
been asked that in any untoward incident, the petitioners can make
a call and the police will be there within no time.”
Vide order dated 14.02.2023, this Court had directed the State to
submit a report about the threat perception to the petitioner after getting the
same assessed from the Competent Authority. In compliance thereto, a status
report by way of affidavit of Murad Jasvir Singh Gill, PPS, Assistant
Commissioner of Police, Industrial Area-A, on behalf of the respondents had
been filed. The relevant extract thereof reads thus:
“3. That the SHO, P.S. Moti Nagar, Ludhiana was directed to
comply with the above noted order of this Hon’ble Court and
thereafter the SHO has reported that ASI Malkit Singh of P.S. Moti
Nagar, Ludhiana was deputed to assess the threat perception to
the petitioners. Accordingly the said ASI went to the house of the
petitioners but the petitioners were not there and their mother was
in the house who told that the petitioners are not at home and
when the said ASI asked the petitioners’ mother to give their
mobile phone numbers, then she refused to do so. She further
refused to give any more information about the petitioners.
However, from the query from the nearby people, it was found that
13 of 18
::: Downloaded on – 27-10-2024 12:09:02 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:133237
CWP-4277-2016 & CRWP-1135-2020 -14-
the petitioners have absolutely no threat from anybody. However,
the said ASI has provided his mobile phone number as well as
mobile phone number of the SHO and MHC of P.S. Moti Nagar
and also the mobile phone number of the PCR employees of the
area and advised the petitioners’ mother to call in need and within
no time, the police will be there. The PCR employees of the area
have also been directed by the SHO to take regular round to the
house of the petitioners.
4. That the facts of the case are that one Deepak Kumar alias
Jhurli had made a statement with the police levelling allegations
that on 12.07.2018 at 06.30 PM, the said complainant alongwith
the present petitioners were playing cricket at Palm City Colony,
Kohara and in the meantime, two youngsters of 20/22 years of age
came on a motorcycle and one of them fired a gunshot at the said
complainant which crossed near his ear and they ran from the
spot. When the complainant followed the said person, then they
also fired another shot which was missed. Accordingly FIR
No.166 dated 17.07.2018, u/s 307, 511, 506 IPC and 25/54/59 of
Arms Act, P.S. Jamalpur, Ludhiana was registered against
unknown persons.
However, petitioner no.1 further madea statement with the
police that on 17.07.2018 he had received a threatening phone call
from one Mobile No.98554-22659 and the person calling from the
other side proclaimed himself to be the person who had fired at the
said complainant and threatened petitioner no.1 that his brother
petitioner no.2 has been saved as the complainant came in front
and if petitioner no.1 wants his brother i.e. petitioner no.2, then
petitioner no.1 has to pay for the life of petitioner no.2. That
unknown person further threatened that next time bullet will be
fired at the forehead of your brother. Accordingly the call details
of the said phone number 98554-22659 was obtained which was of
14 of 18
::: Downloaded on – 27-10-2024 12:09:02 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:133237
CWP-4277-2016 & CRWP-1135-2020 -15-
one person namely Lovepreet Singh, R/o Amritsar. Accordingly the
said Lovepreet Singh was joined in the investigation during which
he stated that some unknown persons had snatched his mobile
phone and the said threatening call had been made to petitioner
no.1. Apart from it, various other suspected persons Were also
joined in the investigation but their involvement was not found in
the crime. Ultimately Untrace Report u/s 173 Cr.P.C. was
prepared in the said FIR and the same has also been accepted on
09.02.2022 by the Court of Sh. Karan Aggarwal, Ld. JMIC,
Ludhiana. However, there is absolutely no threat to the petitioners
from anybody.”
The matter came up for hearing again on 27.03.2023, when this
Court directed the status report to be filed by a senior police officer after getting
the threat perception of the petitioners evaluated by the Security Committee,
headed by ADGP, Security, Punjab. Accordingly, status report by way of
affidavit of Satinderpal Singh, PPS, Assistant Inspector General of Police,
Security, Punjab, Chandigarh has been filed. The relevant extract thereof reads
thus:
“3. That in compliance and pursuance of the orders of this
Hon’ble High Court, a fresh assessment of threat perception in
respect of petitioner has been carried out by the office of
Additional Director General of Police, Security, Punjab, as per the
guidelines prescribed in the State Security Policy-2013 in
accordance thereof, fresh threat perception reports have been
obtained from the concerned quarters.
4. That the respondents are guided by the norms and
guidelines laid down in the afore mentioned State Security Policy
2013. According to the State Security Policy 2013, personal15 of 18
::: Downloaded on – 27-10-2024 12:09:02 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:133237CWP-4277-2016 & CRWP-1135-2020 -16-
security cover to private individuals is provided on the basis of an
evaluation of threat perception, which is subject to periodic
reviews The perception of threat is evaluated on the basis of an
elaborate threat assessment exercise, and it is only after a careful
consideration and an objective assessment and analysis of latest
inputs received from the State Intelligence / field units that the
security cover is deployed withdrawn / or modified accordingly.
The office of AddI, DGP, Security, Punjab, is the competent
authority for carrying out assessment of threat and for the
deployment/ withdrawal / review of security cover.
5. That it is humbly submitted that the norms and guidelines
for providing security to individual protectees have been laid down
in the State Security Policy 2013, which was notified by the Punjab
Government on 02.09.2013, in pursuance of the directions of the
Hon’ble Supreme Court in SLP No. 25237 of 2010 in case titled
Abhay Singh vis State of UP and others. The State Security Policy-
2013 stipulates that “Police officers are recruited, trained and
maintained at a huge cost borne by the taxpayer, and are,
therefore, meant to be deployed for the protection of the
community Providing police officers to individuals for their
protection at the cost of the taxpayer is not the function of the State
or the government and that “personal protection at State expense
was always meant to be an exception, and not the rule Further
according to the “Yellow Book” issued by the Ministry of Home
Affairs. New Delhi laid down guidelines for making security
arrangements for protection of individuals “The tendency to
continue with security arrangements even in the absence of real
threat should be avoided
6. That the threat reports have been examined by this office
which were obtained from the concerned quarters i.e. the State
Intelligence Punjab and the Commissioner of Police, Ludhiana16 of 18
::: Downloaded on – 27-10-2024 12:09:02 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:133237CWP-4277-2016 & CRWP-1135-2020 -17-
The State Intelligence, Punjab has stated the petitioners father had
a Lottery Business in Ludhiana, who had got registered a
corruption case FIR No 168, dated 25.04.2003, PS Division No.
06, Ludhiana against 15 Police officials, which is under trial in
Ludhiana Court. Their father had died in year 2017. According to
the field unit report and office record, at present there is no
specific threat input indicating any threat to their security from
any terrorist/militant/gangster outfits operating in the country. The
Commissioner of Police, Ludhiana has stated in it’s report that
they have filed above said writ petition in the Hon’ble High Court,
regarding grant of security for their life and property. In their
petition they have mentioned an incident that they were shot at by
some unknown assailant, due to that a FIR No. 166, dated
17.07.2018 u/s 307, 511, 506 IPC and 25-54-59 Arms Act was
registered at PS Jamalpur They have also received some threat
calls on Jasdeep Singh’s mobile phone But in their written
statement they requested that, at present we are living well and we
are not getting any threat from anyone as such, we do not need any
police protection and we do not want police protection anymore
After examining all the facts there is no threat to their life and
liberty and also they are not willing to take any police protection
7. That in view of the above mentioned facts and
circumstances, it is submitted that the provision of personal
security cover to the petitioner at state expense is not warranted in
the instant case, as per the guidelines laid down in the State
Security Policy-2013. However, directions is being issued to the
Commissioner of Police, Ludhiana to adequately sensitize the local
police to take suitable, need based preventive measures so as to
avoid any untoward incident”
17 of 18
::: Downloaded on – 27-10-2024 12:09:02 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:133237
CWP-4277-2016 & CRWP-1135-2020 -18-
It has been averred that the allegations of the petitioners have been
evaluated thrice over by officials and they have submitted a report that there is
no valid apprehension and that the petitioners do not need any police protection.
The abovesaid status report was filed by the respondents on 17.05.2023,
however, despite lapse of more than a year, no replication/rejoinder or counter
affidavit has been filed by the petitioners. The apprehension of the petitioners
has already been examined by different authorities at multiple levels but they
did not find any threat apprehension against the lives and liberties of the
petitioners.
The averments raised by the respondents have remained
uncontroverted and unrebutted, hence, no further directions are required to be
issued.
The present petition is accordingly dismissed.
Misc. application(s) in both the cases, if any, also stand(s) disposed
of accordingly.
(VINOD S. BHARDWAJ)
30.09.2024 JUDGE
rajender
Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No
Whether reportable : Yes/No
18 of 18
::: Downloaded on - 27-10-2024 12:09:02 :::