Punjab and Haryana High Court
CRWP/9118/2026 of SAFIA @ SAFIA BEGUM & ANOTHER Vs STATE OF PUNJAB AND OTHERS on 10 September 2026
COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH (112) CRWP-9118-2026 (O & M) Date of decision: 10.09.2026 Safia @ Safia Begum and anr. ...Petitioners V/s State of Punjab and ors. ...Respondent(s) CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE JASJIT SINGH BEDI Present: Mr. Bhupinder Singh Kundra, Advocate, for
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
(112) CRWP-9118-2026 (O & M)
Date of decision: 10.09.2026 Safia @ Safia Begum and anr.
...Petitioners V/s State of Punjab and ors.
...Respondent(s)
CORAM:
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE JASJIT SINGH BEDI Present: Mr. Bhupinder Singh Kundra, Advocate, for the petitioners. Mr. Athar Ahmed, DAG, Punjab. **** JASJIT SINGH BEDI,
J. (Oral)
The prayer in the present petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India read with Section 528 BNSS (Section 482 Cr.P.C.) is for the issuance of a writ in the nature of Mandamus directing the respondents No.2 to 4 to provide police protection to the petitioners and their family members from respondents No.5 to 51.
2. The learned counsel for the petitioners contends that the petitioners had moved a representation dated 09.07.2026 (Annexure P-1) making certain allegations against respondents No.5 to 51 to the Director General of Police, Punjab-respondent No.2. Despite the said representation having been moved, no action has been taken on the same. The petitioner face a threat to their life and liberty at the hands of the private respondents who are in cahoots with the police officials. Therefore, appropriate orders be passed by this Court. SUKHPREET KAUR 2026.09.11 17:05 I agree to specified portions of this document
3. The learned counsel for the State, on the other hand, contends that the petitioner are levelling allegation against the entire neighbourhood and the representation dated 09.07.2026 (Annexure P-1) moved by the petitioners seeking action against the respondents has been filed by the investigating agency after due enquiry. Further, the petitioners have also filed a complaint under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. (Section 175(3) BNSS). Therefore, the present petition is liable to be dismissed.
4. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties.
5. Admittedly, the petitioners have moved a representation (Annexure P-1) in July, 2026, which has been filed by the investigating agency on the premise that no action was to be taken on the same. The petitioners have also availed their remedies in accordance with law by seeking a registration of an FIR against some of the respondents.
6. In view of the above, no further orders are required to be passed by this Court at this stage. Disposed of.
7. The pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of accordingly. September 10, 2026 ( JASJIT SINGH BEDI) sukhpreet JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No Whether reportable : Yes/No SUKHPREET KAUR 2026.09.11 17:05 I agree to specified portions of this document