Criminal Misc. No.M-12719 of 2010 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Cr.M.No.M-12719 of 2010(O&M) DATE OF DECISION : 5.8.2011 Harbans Singh PETITIONER VERSUS State of Haryana and others RESPONDENTS CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MAHESH GROVER Present:- Shri R.S.Rana, Advocate for the petitioner. Shri Sandeep Mann, Senior D.A.G. Haryana. MAHESH GROVER, J. This is a petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. praying for appropriate directions to respondents 1 to 3 to search the son of the petitioner. Apparently, there seems to be a matrimonial dispute between the son of the petitioner and respondent No.4. Notice of motion was issued and the respondents have filed reply. They have also filed a status report subsequent to the filing of reply on 18.7.2011. According to this report, an enquiry has been conducted and it has been found that the marriage of Kala i.e. the son of the petitioner was solemnised with respondent No.4 on 10.7.2000. A case was registered on 26.2.2009 under Sections 498- Criminal Misc. No.M-12719 of 2010 -2- A,406,323,506,342,34 I.P.C. at the behest of respondent No.4. The son of the petitioner was arrested by ASI Devinder Singh from Police Post, Subji Mandi, Rohtak and was produced before the Court and released on bail, but he absented and his bail bonds were cancelled and non-bailable warrants issued. The enquiry report further states that the son of the petitioner never visited the house of respondent No.5 and statements of a number of persons who are neighbours of respondent No.5 Jagat Singh, have been recorded to this effect. The statement of the person who is the surety to the son of the petitioner, has also been recorded. Further enquiry was also made and attempts for execution of the warrants issued against the son of the petitioner were made and it revealed that he had not been coming to Khanna for the last few months and his whereabouts were not known. Efforts are still being made to trace out the son of the petitioner, though there has been no formal complaint received by the Police Station, Rohtak from his family members. On due consideration of the matter, I am of the opinion that no further direction can be issued by this Court as respondents 1 to 3 have made bona fide efforts to trace out the son of the petitioner. There does not seem to be any material to suggest any foul play by respondents 4 to 9. The impression of suspicion in the mind of the petitioner is ostensibly for the reason that they have been involved in the aforesaid offence in which their other family members are facing trial. There is thus, no ground to interfere any further. Dismissed. (MAHESH GROVER) August 5, 2011 JUDGE GD WHETHER TO BE REFERRED TO REPORTER? YES/NO Criminal Misc. No.M-12719 of 2010 -3-