IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Writ Petition No.18858 of 2010 Date of Decision : October 15, 2010. Harjit Kaur Vhanana and others .....Petitioners versus State of Punjab and others .....Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SURYA KANT. Present : Mr.Veneet Sharma, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr.H.S.Brar, Additional AG, Punjab. -.- 1. Whether Reporters of Local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? --- Surya Kant, J. (Oral) Notice of motion. Mr.H.S.Brar, learned Additional Advocate General, Punjab, accepts notice on behalf of the respondents. In view of the nature of order which I propose to pass, there is no need to seek any counter reply from the respondents at this stage. The petitioners seek a mandamus to direct the respondent- authorities to protect their life and liberty. Though the averments made in the writ petition do reveal that there exists a family and matrimonial dispute between the petitioners and the husband of petitioner No.1, however, having regard to the fact that the C.W.P.No .18858 of 2010 2 petitioners are alleged to have been threatened with dire consequences and in this regard, a complaint dated 24.9.2010 (Annexure P-1) has already been made by them to the District Administration, I deem it appropriate to dispose of this writ petition but without expressing any views on the merits of the allegations as no prejudice is to be caused to anyone at this stage, with a direction to the Commissioner of Police, Amritsar and the Station House Officer, Police Station, C-Division, Amritsar, to take cognizance of the compliant alleged to have been received from the petitioners and do the needful as may be required in law, at the earliest. Ordered accordingly. Dasti. October 15, 2010 (SURYA KANT) Mohinder JUDGE