CRM No. M 35541 of 2010 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH -- CRM No. M 35541 of 2010 Date of decision: 07.04.2011 Jaspreet Kaur ........ Petitioner Versus State of Punjab and others .......Respondent(s) Coram: Hon'ble Ms Justice Nirmaljit Kaur -.- Present: Mr. Parminder Singh, Advocate for the petitioner Mr. K S Pannu, DAG, Punjab for the respondent State Mr. Amit Arora, Advocate for respondents 4 to 9 -.- 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. To be referred to the Reporter or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? Nirmaljit Kaur, J. (Oral) This is a petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C for issuance of direction to respondents No. 1 to 3 to protect the life and liberty of the petitioner and her family members at the hands of respondent No.2 4 to 9, who are causing threat to the petitioner to kill herself and her minor son who are living alone in their house. Reply has been filed by the State. Reply has also been filed on behalf of respondents No. 4 to 9. The same are taken on record. As per the reply filed by the State, on the written complaint of Jaspreet Kaur, SI Malkit CRM No. M 35541 of 2010 2 Singh of P S Goindwal Sahib called respondent Nos. 4 to 9 to sort out the complaint of the petitioner but respondent No. 4 to 9 did not appear before SI Malkit Singh and thereafter, proceeding under Section 107/150 Cr.P.C was initiated against Gurcharan Singh son of Arjun Singh, Sukhwinder Kaur wife of Gurcharan Singh and Amar Kaur wife of Arjun Singh vide DDR No. 10 dated 05.08.2010 and the same has been presented in the Court of SDM, Tarn Taran. It is further mentioned in para 9 of the said reply that there is no danger to the life and liberty of the petitioner and her family members at the hands of respondents No. 4 to 9. Moreover, a period of six months since the proceedings under Section 107/150 Cr.P.C were initiated has lapsed. In view of the above, the present petition is disposed of with direction that, in case, the petitioner still feel threatened, she is at liberty to approach respondent No. 2, who shall look into the same and take appropriate measures, if need be and in accordance with law. (Nirmaljit Kaur) Judge 07.04.2011 mohan