IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Crl. Misc. No. 52325-M of 2006 DATE OF DECISION : 31.08.2006 Kanwar Harinder Singh and others .... PETITIONERS Versus State of Punjab and others ..... RESPONDENTS CORAM :- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SATISH KUMAR MITTAL Present: Mr. S.S. Behl, Advocate, for the petitioners. * * * The petitioners have filed this petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for issuing direction to respondents No.1 to 3 to get the matter investigated thoroughly from an independent agency before implementation of the order dated August 25, 2006, passed by this Court in Crl. Misc. No. 19876-M of 2006. 2. I have heard counsel for the petitioners. 3. In this case, one Santokh Singh made a written complaint for registration of a criminal case against the petitioners. When the case was not registered on his complaint, he filed Crl. Misc. No. 19876-M of 2006 for issuing direction to the police to register a criminal case against the accused persons. In the said petition, after issuing notice of motion and after hearing the State Counsel, a direction was issued for registration of the case, as the complaint made by said Santokh Singh prima facie disclosed the commission of a cognizable offence. 4. Now the petitioners have filed the instant petition alleging that when the order dated August 26, 2006 was passed by this Court, they were not heard, therefore, before implementation of the aforesaid order and registration of case, the matter be got investigated from an independent agency. 5. I do not find any substance in the argument raised by counsel for the petitioners. This Court, after hearing the State, has already issued the Crl. Misc. No. 52325-M of 2006 -2- direction for registration of the case on the complaint made by Santokh Singh. After registration of the case, the matter will be investigated by the police and in my opinion, it will be open for the petitioners to convince the investigating agency that the allegations against them are false and they can establish their innocence before it. However, no such order, as prayed for by the petitioners, can be passed. 6. Dismissed. August 31, 2006 ( SATISH KUMAR MITTAL ) ndj JUDGE