IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA, CHANDIGARH Criminal Miscellaneous No. M-15102 of 2011 (O & M) Date of Decision: August 16, 2011 Lalita Chawla @ Kajal Chawla .....PETITIONER(S) VERSUS State of Haryana & others .....RESPONDENT(S) . . . CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAI LAMBA PRESENT: - Mr. Jagmohan Ghumman, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. B.S. Saini, Senior Deputy Advocate General, Haryana, for respondent Nos.1 to 4. None for respondent No.5. Mr. Ravi Sharma, Advocate, for respondent No.6. . . . AJAI LAMBA, J (Oral) 1. This petition has been filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. on the premise that petitioner, Lalita Chawla @ Kajal Chawla was married to respondent No.6, Gobind Chawla. Respondent No.6, however, subsequently got married to respondent No.5, Jyoti. In view of the differences between the petitioner and respondent No.6, the petitioner feels threatened and therefore, prays Crl. Misc. No. M-15102 of 2011 [2] for protection of life and liberty. 2. I have considered the contentions of the learned counsel. 3. While the petitioner relies on Annexure P-1 and P-2 to contend that they got married, respondent Nos.5 and 6 approached this Court by way of filing Criminal Miscellaneous No.M-14800 of 2011 (Jyoti & another vs. State of Haryana & others) to seek protection on the premise that the said two persons got married against the wishes of their parents. Certain directions were issued vide Order dated 13.5.2011 by this Court. 3. There are disputed questions of facts. There appears to be a matrimonial dispute that cannot be resolved by of this petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. Evidence cannot be taken by way of affidavits and counter affidavits to adjudicate as to whether Lalita Chawla (petitioner) is the wife of Gobind Chawla (respondent No.6) or Jyoti (respondent No.5) is the legally wedded wife of Gobind Chawla. 4. The petitioner has not been able to show any serious perception of threat. No ground for passing any direction is made out. 5. The petition is dismissed. (AJAI LAMBA) August 16, 2011 JUDGE avin Crl. Misc. No. M-15102 of 2011 [3] 1. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 2. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?