SADIK SINGH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By this order, the aforementioned petitions are being decided together since facts are almost the same and common issue is involved in both the petitions.

(2.) Petitioner Sadik Singh, aged about 63 years, his wife Bhupinder Kaur, aged about 61 years, their son Tanvir Singh, aged about 34 years and Manjit Kaur, aged about 39 years wife of Tanvir Singh have brought the present criminal writ petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India for issuance of appropriate writ, orders or directions especially in the nature of mandamus directing State of Punjab through Secretary, Department of Home Affairs and Justice, Punjab Civil Secretariat, Chandigarh, DGP, Punjab, Police Headquarters, Sector-9 Chandigarh and SSP, Police District Khanna-respondents No.l to 3 respectively to protect the personal life and liberty of the petitioners at the hands of respondent No.6 at whose instance, respondents No.4 and 5 are threatening the petitioners to rope them in false criminal case by entertaining the second complaint given by respondent No.6, which is quite grave violation of standing instructions dated 01.04.2008 issued by respondent No.2-DGP, Punjab and further issuance of writ in the nature of certiorari for quashing the impugned action of respondents No.4 and 5 etc.

(3.) According to the petitioners Sikander Singh younger son of Sadik Singh and Bhupinder Kaur got married with respondent No.6 Rubia Bhatti in the year 2016. No dowry was demanded or accepted. Sikander Singh went back to Australia after his marriage. Rubia Bhatti used to pick up quarrel with petitioners No.l and 2; Sikander Singh used to come to India every year. Respondent No.6 started demanding share from joint property; petitioner No.l had disowned Sikander Singh and his wife Rubia Bhatti. Then, she submitted false complaint dated 30.04.2019 before respondent No.3 on the allegation of demand of dowry and giving her beatings. That complaint was marked to Superintendent of Police (HQ) Khanna for necessary action. Enquiry was conducted; petitioners had got their statements recorded; notice was issued to respondent Rubia Bhatti who appeared before Enquiry Officer but stated that she did not want to make any statement since she had made another complaint before respondent No.4-Inspector General of Police, NRI and Women Wing, SAS Nagar, Punjab. Ultimately, Enquiry Officer came to the conclusion that there was no truth in the allegations levelled against the petitioners and recommended the complaint to be consigned to the office record room. Respondent No.6 had filed a false complaint to respondent No.4, which is not maintainable, since she is not an NRI. Even as per standing instructions issued, vide Diary No.l37-233/PA/DGP dated 01.04.2008 by respondent No.2, a second enquiry cannot be conducted into the same complaint or cause without his approval or approval of Punjab Government.