Crl. Writ Petition No. 1077 of 2009 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Crl. Writ Petition No. 1077 of 2009 Date of Decision: October 27, 2009 Harpreet Kaur … Petitioner Versus Sh. Satnam Singh and others … Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE S.D. ANAND Present : Mr. J.S.Bhatti, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. A.P.Singh Luna, Advocate, for respondent No.1. Mr. K.S.Minhas and Mr. Rajiv Sharma, Advocates, for Mr. Anupam Gupta, Senior Standing Counsel, for U.T., Chandigarh. Mr. B.B.S.Teji, Assistant Advocate General, Punjab. Mr. S.S.Brar, Advocate, for respondent No.5. ***** S.D. Anand, J. Paramjit Kaur and Manpreet Kaur had filed Crl. Misc. No.M- 26661 of 2009. In the course thereof, they had applied for protection of their lives and liberty. The allegations, on the basis whereof they made the prayer, are not relevant. In the course thereof, a Coordinate Bench (Mahesh Grover, J.) of this Bench passed the following order on 22.09.2009: - “Petitioner No.1 Paramjit Kaur is daughter in law of respondent No.4 Charanjit Kaur while petitioner No.2 Manpreet Kaur is her daughter. Both of them have filed this petition levelling serious allegations against respondent no.4 of running an immoral network involving flesh trade. Manpreet Kaur has further alleged that her daughter aged 6 years has been forcibly detained by Charanjit Kaur. Both of them have also averred that they apprehend danger to their life and pleaded that they be sent to Nari Niketan, Sector – 26, Crl. Writ Petition No. 1077 of 2009 -2- Chandigarh so that they may escape from the clutches of respondent No.4 who is not only forcing them to participate in the immoral activities but it also threatening them with dire consequences including death in the ventuality of their refusing to follow her dictates. The Court has interacted with petitioners and have ascertained their wishes and both of them have unequivocally stated that they are subjected to harassment and also being forced into immoral activities. The concern of the Court has been sufficintly aroused noticing the peculiar allegations that have been made in the present petition. The Court also feels that the matter requires deeper probe and therefore, directs respondent No.2 to get the matter investigated through the agency of some senior official. He shall also ensure that during the pendency of the petition on untoward harm comes to the child of Manpreet Kaur who is alleged to be in custody of respondent No.4. Respondent No.2 shall also ensure that a competent and reliable officer who may involve a woman officer be despatched immediately so as to ensure the safety of the minor child allegedly in the custody of said Charanjit Kaur. Notice of motion to respondents for 06.10.2009. Service of respondent No.4 is directed to be carried out through the agency of respondent No.3. Charanjit Kaur – respondent No.4 is directed to produce the child in court on the next date of hearing. In the meantime, petitioners shall be lodged in Nari Niketan, Sector 26, Chandigarh as an express request has been made to this Court by the petitioners to this effect. SHO, Sector – 26, Chandigarh is directed to make the necessary arrangements for the said purpose and he shall ensure the security of the petitioners. Counsel for the U.T., Administration to ensure compliance. A copy of this order be given dasti under the signatures of the court Secretary of this bench to all concerned, including the Sr. Standing counsel for the U.T.” Crl. Writ Petition No. 1077 of 2009 -3- It is thereafter that Harpreet Kaur (petitioner in the present petition) filed a plea to locate the whereabouts of Paramjit Kaur. In this petition, in which the reply has not yet even filed, Paramjit Kaur has entered appearance today and she is identified by Harpreet Kaur. Paramjit Kaur informs the Court that she is putting up with her in-laws and that she is not detained anywhere. In the light thereof, she would be at liberty since she is concededly a major. There would be no further orders with regard to her. Mr. J.S.Bhatti, under instructions from the petitioner, states that he reserves liberty to proceed against the appropriate quarters on a charge of wrongful confinement/detention etc. Disposed of accordingly. October 27, 2009 ( S.D. Anand ) vinod Judge