IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Crl. Misc. No. M-7528 of 2010 (O&M) Date of decision:March 12, 2010 Sahab Singh Petitioner Versus State of Haryana and others Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE DAYA CHAUDHARY Present: Mr. R.S. Rana, Advocate for the petitioner Mr. S.S. Mor, DAG Haryana for the respondent – State DAYA CHAUDHARY, J. (ORAL) The present petition has been filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for issuance of directions to respondents No. 2 and 3 to look into the grievances of the petitioner in view of the directions issued by this Court on 16.11.2009 which is annexed as Annexure P-2 with the petition and to arrest respondents No. 4 to 6 in case FIR No. 580 dated 13.9.2009 registered under Section 307/34 IPC and 25/54/59 of Arms Act registered at Police Station City Kaithal. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the said FIR was registered on 13.9.2009 but no action has been taken, inspite of directions issued by this Court and respondents No. 4 to 6 have not been arrested. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the accused party is threatening the petitioner and is putting pressure to withdraw the case. Without issuing notice of motion, learned counsel for the State was directed to get instructions in this case and copy of the petition was also supplied during the course of the day. Crl. Misc. No. M-7528 of 2010 (O&M) 2 Mr. S.S. Mor, DAG Haryana on getting instructions telephonically from Inspector/SHO Ashok Kumar, Police Station City Kaithal informed this Court that four accused namely Harjinder Fauji, Shekhar, Rajiv and Surender Pehlwan have been arrested and report under Section 173 Cr.P.C. has been presented in the Court against two accused persons namely, Sunil and Balwant and P.O. proceedings are also pending. Learned counsel for the State further submits that on the basis of directions issued by this Court on 16.11.2009, two police officials with arms were deputed for security of the complainant party. Keeping in view the statement made by learned counsel for the respondent – State, no further action is required on this petition. Dismissed as having become infructuous. (DAYA CHAUDHARY) 12.03.2010 JUDGE reena