HC allows woman to earn livelihood by re-opening her husband’s grocery shop which was allegedly locked by Punjab Police

Read Order: Baljinder Kaur v. State of Punjab and Others

Monika Rahar

Chandigarh, January 12, 2022: The Punjab and Haryana High Court has granted relief to the petitioner-wife who approached the High Court with a petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. seeking directions to respondent authorities to open the locks of her husband’s shop which was allegedly locked in an illegal manner by respondents when her husband was arrested by them. 

The petitioner’s husband (Ranjit Singh) who was running a grocery shop was arrested in a case pertaining to an FIR which was registered against two persons who implicated him by their statements. 

It was the case of the petitioner’s counsel that while arresting the petitioner, the Punjab Police locked the said grocery shop and took away the keys and subsequently, the investigation in the case was handed over to the National Investigation Agency which registered another case. 

It was further submitted that after the arrest of the petitioner’s husband, the petitioner requested the local police to hand over the keys of the above-said shop to her because the same was the source of livelihood of the petitioner and her children. It was also argued that locking the shop without any order of a competent Court was illegal and arbitrary and that even articles belonging to the petitioner and her family members were placed inside the shop. 

The Counsel placed reliance upon Punjab and Haryana High Court decision in Ramandeep Kaur Vs. State of Punjab [CRM-M-32133-2019] to contend that in similar situations, the High Court directed the police officials to hand over the keys to the petitioner. 

The State counsel submitted that in the present case, arrest and search were made by the Punjab Police and the keys of the shop were never handed over by the Punjab Police to the agency at the time of handing over the documents. 

Keeping in view the position taken by the Co-ordinate Bench of this High Court in the above-cited case, and also considering the fact that the petitioner was not involved in this case, and that the running of the shop was very necessary given the fact it was a source of livelihood for the petitioner, the Bench of Justice Vikas Bahl allowed the petitioner to open/ unlock the shop. The fact that the respondents did not have any objections with the petitioner opening and running the shop, was also considered by the Court.