CWP No.7100 of 2008 -: 1 :- IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP No.7100 of 2008 Date of decision: March 25, 2009. Malkiat Singh & Ors. ...Petitioner(s) v. State of Punjab & Ors. ...Respondent(s) CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURYA KANT 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment ? 2. Whether to be referred to the Reporters or not ? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? Present: Shri G.S. Bhatti, Advocate for the petitioners. Shri K.S. Dadwal, Additional Advocate General, Punjab, for respondents No.1 & 2. Shri P.S. Brar, Advocate for respondent(s) No.3. ORDER Surya Kant, J. - (Oral): The prayer in this writ petition is for issuance of a writ of quo- warranto for removal of respondent No.3 from the post of Deputy Superintendent of Police and also to direct initiation of inquiry against him by some independent agency. It is not necessary or desirable to describe the nature or extent of the allegations made by the petitioners against respondent No.3. Suffice it to say that on account of matrimonial discord of petitioner no.2 with her CWP No.7100 of 2008 -: 2 :- previous husband, respondent No.3 who was the police officer investigating some related matter, took alleged advantage and developed illicit relationship with petitioner No.2. She, after re-marrying petitioner no.2 and leaving behind her past, did not want to continue the alleged relationship with the 3rd respondent who, reportedly started harassing the petitioners and is said to have got petitioner no.1, namely, the husband of petitioner NO.2 implicated in a false case under the NDPS Act. The observations made herein-above find support from the inquiry report dated 24.5.2007 (Annexure P-29) submitted by the SSP, Khanna. The said inquiry report was sent to the DIG, Ludhiana Range, Ludhiana but no action appears to have been taken pursuant thereto. The petitioners had earlier filed Crl. Misc. No.42187-M of 2007 which was disposed of by this Court with a direction to the Director General of Police, Punjab to entrust the representation made on behalf of the petitioners to some senior police officer for redressal of their grievance. Learned Counsel for the parties have been heard and pleadings and other material on record perused. Shri K.S. Dadwal, learned Additional Advocate General, Punjab, submits that the police authorities have not examined the petitioners' allegations as was directed by this Court vide order dated 11.12.2007, referred to above, for the reason that meanwhile the present writ petition has been filed and the matter remained sub-judice. Having regard to the fact that a senior police officer in the rank of SSP has already held a fact-finding inquiry and recommended action against respondent No.3 vide report dated 24.5.2007 (Annexure P-29), this writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the Principal Secretary, CWP No.7100 of 2008 -: 3 :- Home, Govt. of Punjab and the Director General of Police, Punjab to take cognizance of the said report and take appropriate action against respondent No.3, as may be permissible in law in a time-bound manner, preferably within a period of four months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. As regards the petitioners' apprehension of their false implication in one or the other criminal case at the instance of respondent No.3, in my considered view, no general directions can be issued except to observe that as and when a case is registered with suspected involvement of respondent No.3, the petitioners shall be at liberty to represent before the higher police authorities and their allegations to that effect shall be immediately considered by the SSP of the District concerned to ensure that no one violates the petitioners' right to live with dignity by way of persecution. Disposed of. Dasti. March 25, 2009. [ Surya Kant ] kadyan Judge