CWP No.2605 of 2010(O&M) [1] IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP No.2605 of 2010 (O&M) Date of Decision: 15.09.2011 Bir Parkash Malhotra s/o Sh. Baldev Raj Malhotra, r/o B-XIX-504 Dasaunda Singh Road, Civil Lines, Ludhiana and others ... Petitioners Versus State of Punjab through Secretary to Govt. of Punjab, Department of Home Affairs, Punjab, Chandigarh and others ... Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. KANNAN Present: Mr. Arjun Lakhanpal, Advocate, for the petitioners. Mr. Anil Sharma, Addl. AG, Punjab, for respondents No.1 to 3. Mr. Daldeep Singh, Advocate, for respondent No.4. ***** 1. Whether reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? NO 2. To be referred to the reporters or not? NO 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the digest? NO K. KANNAN, J. (Oral) 1. Petitioners' prayer is for protection of life and liberty and to hold inquiry into alleged false implication of the petitioner and also against attempt of usurp the property by the respondents No.4 by exercising political influence. 2. The State has filed an affidavit assuring the petitioner of adequate security and it has also stated that they will keep watch on his safety. This Court has observed in the order dated 09.04.2010 that the State has also registered FIRs on the basis of written complaints and that they are pending CWP No.2605 of 2010(O&M) [2] investigation. 3. The counsel appearing on behalf of respondent No.4 states that the FIRs that led to investigation resulted in challaning the petitioner for an offence under Sections 406/420/120-B IPC and criminal trial is in progress. There cannot be parallel proceedings before this Court as well. While the petitioner could be protected for any bonafide exercise of his legal right, he could not misuse the same to provide him immunity for action on any complaint that respondents No.4 may have against the petitioners and in respect of which a criminal trial is in progress. I do not think any further direction is necessary and I would take the affidavit filed by the State as sufficient for the redressal of grievance of the petitioners. 4. The writ petition is disposed of as above. SEPTEMBER 15, 2011 ( K. KANNAN ) Rajan JUDGE