Crl. Misc. No. M-21743 of 2010 1 IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Crl. Misc. No. M-21743 of 2010 (O&M) Date of decision: 30.7.2010 Rajinder Kaur ...Petitioner Versus The State of Haryana & others ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJAN GUPTA Present: Mr. Malkeet Singh, Advocate, for the petitioner. Rajan Gupta, J. (oral) The petitioner has preferred this writ petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. seeking a direction to respondents No.1 to 4 for protecting his life and liberty as she apprehends danger to her life at the hands of respondent No.5. Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the petitioner was living happily with her husband (respondent No.5) but relations between them got strained after some time. Due to this, respondent No.5 along with his parents started maltreating the petitioner. Later on, there was a divorce between petitioner and respondent No.5. According to counsel, the petitioner married one Kamaldeep Singh thereafter but could not pull along with him either. Thereafter, she again started living with respondent No.5 but was maltreated again. She then submitted representation, Annexure P-3 to respondent No.2. However, no action was taken thereon. Crl. Misc. No. M-21743 of 2010 2 I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner. From the averments made in the petition and the arguments addressed by learned counsel, the purpose of filing the instant writ petition is not clear. From the facts, as stated, it appears that the entire matter relates to strained relations with her previous husband (respondent No.5). Admittedly, neither any complaint nor any FIR was ever lodged by the petitioner in respect of any threat from him. Petitioner is stated to have divorced respondent No.5 vide decree dated 16th July, 2008 (Annexure P-1). However, present representation (Annexure P-3) has been submitted on 13th July, 2010. There is nothing on record to show that the petitioner faced any threat from respondent No.5. In any case, the representation has been submitted only recently i.e. on 13th July, 2010 and the petitioner has hastened to file the instant petition. In my considered view, the petition is totally frivolous and deserves to be dismissed with exemplary cost. However, this court is refraining from doing so keeping in view that the petitioner is a lady and has a child to look after. Dismissed. (RAJAN GUPTA) JUDGE 30.7.2010 'rajpal'