CRM No. M 13918 of 2010 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH -- CRM No. M 13918 of 2010 Date of decision: 16.08.2010 Sunita Joshi and others ........ Petitioners Versus State of Punjab and others .......Respondent(s) Coram: Hon'ble Ms Justice Nirmaljit Kaur -.- Present: None for the petitioners Mr. K S Pannu, DAG, Punjab for the respondent State Mr. H S Brar, Advocate for respondent No. 4 -.- 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgement? 2. To be referred to the Reporter or not? 3. Whether the judgement should be reported in the Digest? Nirmaljit Kaur, J. (Oral) This is a petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for issuance of directions to the respondents not to violate the mandatory provisions as provided under Section 160 Cr.P.C. with further prayer that action be taken against respondent Nos. 5 to 9. Reply by way of affidavit of Raj Kumar, PPS, ACP, West, Ludhiana on behalf of respondents No. 1 to 3 has been filed. As per para 4 of the preliminary submission of the aforesaid reply, SHO, NRI, Police Station issued a call notice to Mrs. Sunita Joshi, Priya Joshi, Samita Joshi CRM No. M 13918 of 2010 2 and Kumar Joshi, all residents of part of property unit No. B.I.135, Ram Nagar, Civil Lines intimating them to appear on 01.05.2010 at 11.00 a.m. Thereafter, a call notice was also sent at the residence of the petitioners on 02.05.2010 through HC Rattan Chand NO. 915/Ldh of PS NRI, Ludhiana. The same was served upon one Sampat Sharma as petitioner No. 1-Sunita Joshi was not present in the house. Another call notice was sent under Section 160 of the Code of Criminal Procedure on 04.05.2010 through the aforesaid Head Constable. The same was noted by one Rakesh Kumar. It is also stated that the petitioners were called during day time at 11.00 am, however, they didi not cooperate with the investigating officials. Section 160 of the Code of Criminal Procedure reads thus:- “160. Police Officer’s power to require attendance of witnesses. (1) Any police officer making an investigation under this Chapter may, by order in writing, require the attendance before himself of any person being within the limits of his own or any adjoining station who from, the information given or otherwise, appears to be acquainted with the facts and circumstances of the case; and such person shall attend as so required: Provided that no male person under the age of fifteen years or woman shall be required to attend at any place other than the place in which such male person or woman resides. (2) The State Government may, by rules made in this behalf, provide for the payment by the police officer of the reasonable expenses of every person, attending under sub-section (1) at any place other than his residence.” The petitioners No. 1 to 3 are women whereas, petitioner No. 4 is minor. CRM No. M 13918 of 2010 3 Accordingly, Mr. K S Pannu, learned Deputy Advocate General, Punjab, on instructions from ASI- Balbir Singh, states that the provisions of Section 160 Cr.P.C. shall be duly complied with. In view of the above statement, no further order is required to be passed. Taking into account the second prayer made by the learned counsel for the petitioners, it is pointed out that the complaint bearing No. 2024/10/2009 moved by the petitioners was duly enquired into and after conducting a fact finding enquiry by the then DSP/Sarabha Nagar Ludhiana, the complaint was recommended to be filed by DSP/Sarabha Nagar vide his enquiry report dated 28.05.2009. Learned State counsel, on instructions from ASI-Balbir Singh, states that no other complaint filed by the petitioners is pending before the Investigating officer. The petitioners are at liberty to file criminal complaint or to avail of any other alternative remedy as may be available to them under the law qua the aforesaid complainant, if not satisfied or if so advised. Disposed of in the above terms. (Nirmaljit Kaur) Judge August 16, 2010 mohan