The Punjab and Haryana High Court has directed the Chandigarh Police to provide protection for a week to a businessman and his family after he filed a petition alleging threats from BJP MP Kirron Kher and her aide.
The petition filed by Chaittnya Aggarwal through senior advocate Anmol Rattan Sidhu submitted that the businessman, his wife Ruchika Aggarwal and their two minor daughters were apprehending a threat to their lives from the Chandigarh MP.
The petitioner also alleged that there were some financial issues between him and the respondents which might be the reason for such apprehension. He submitted that he came in contact with Ms. Kher's aide Sahdev Salaria through a BJP worker.
The petitioner claimed that Ms. Kher gave him ₹8 crore for investment. He has already returned ₹2 crore and the remaining is to be returned, Mr. Aggarwal added.
Owing to fluctuations in the market, the petitioner sought time to generate profits on the investment and return the money, according to the plea.
The petitioner claimed that he was threatened to immediately return the money along with interest and was being constantly harassed by Ms. Kher and her aide.
However, public prosecutor Manish Bansal submitted before the court that no complaint has been received in any police station regarding the same at the behest of the petitioner or his wife or minor daughters.
He further submitted that in case of any such threat, there is helpline number 112 to report such matters but neither has the petitioner nor any of his family members called the helpline number.
Petitioner's counsel Mr. Sidhu submitted that "given the profile of respondent no.2 (Ms. Kher) if they have straightaway come to this court, it cannot be a ground to refuse protection to their life and liberty".
Without commenting on the merits of the case and the admissibility value of any of the allegations in the petition, the court said in a December 11 order, "If this court does not give them protection for the time being, that might amount to not exercising the constitutional jurisdiction."
"Thus, in the facts and circumstances peculiar to this case, it shall be appropriate that the concerned Superintendent of Police and the concerned SHO provide appropriate protection to the petitioner for one week from today," it said.
The court further said if the petitioner no longer required the protection, then it may be discontinued before the expiry of the one week.
"This protection is subject to the stringent condition that from the time such protection is given, the petitioner and his wife shall not go outside the boundaries of the place of residence, except for medical necessities, to buy household necessities, and for bereavements in the families of the close relatives or close friends," the court said.
The court also imposed certain restrictions to ensure the protection is not “flaunted or misutilised”.
It clarified that in case the petitioner or his wife violates any of the conditions, the order of protection shall stand recalled automatically.
