Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2021 DIGILAW 1557 (PNJ)

Reena Chandna v. State Of Punjab

2021-08-11

VIKAS BAHL

body2021
JUDGMENT Vikas Bahl, J. - Although, today, the Lawyers have decided to abstain from appearing in the Court because of the call given by the Bar Association, however, petitioner No.1 namely Reena Chandna and petitioner No.2 namely Navya Deep Singh (who is minor through his mother-petitioner No.1), have appeared in person through Video Conferencing and have prayed for the disposal of the present petition. 2. The present Criminal Writ Petition has been filed under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India for directing respondent Nos.1 to 3 to protect the life and personal liberty of the petitioners. 3. It is the case of petitioner No.1 that she had solemnized marriage with respondent No.4 and out of this wedlock, a baby boy namely Navya Deep Singh was born on 16.03.2015. Petitioner No.1 has further pleaded that she had got registered an FIR No.65 dated 11.04.2021 (Annexure P-1) against respondent No.4 and her in-laws. It is further the case of petitioner No.1 that she was being threatened by respondent No.4 regularly and, therefore, she had come to the place of her sister at Kharar, District SAS Nagar, Mohali where she is residing in the flat of her sister as tenant. Petitioner No.1 is apprehensive that respondent No.4 may forcibly take petitioner No.2 from her custody. 4. The petitioners are, thus, seeking protection of their life and liberty. Regarding the same, a representation dated 20.07.2021 (Annexure P-3) has been given by petitioner No.1 to respondent No.2. 5. The petitioners have appeared through Video Conferencing and have even shown their identity cards. 6. After considering the abovesaid facts and without any expression on merits of the case, this Court deems it appropriate to dispose of the present Criminal Writ Petition with direction to respondent No.2 to look into the representation dated 20.07.2021 (Annexure P-3) and after considering the threat perception to the petitioners, respondent No.2 will take appropriate action in accordance with law. 7. It is again clarified that this Court has not opined one way or the other with respect to the merits of the case or as to who would be entitled ultimately to the custody of the child and has passed the said order only in order to protect the life and liberty of the petitioners. 8. In view of what has been observed above, the present Criminal Writ Petition stands disposed of in the abovesaid terms.