Crl. Misc. No.M-2828 of 2011 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Crl. Misc. No.M-2828 of 2011 Date of Decision: 21.03.2011 Malwi and another ....Petitioners Versus State of Punjab and others ...Respondents CORAM : Hon'ble Ms. Justice Nirmaljit Kaur Present:- Mr. Sandeep S. Majithia, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. K.S. Pannu, D.A.G., Punjab for the respondent-State. ***** 1. Whether Reporters of Local Newspapers 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 ? ** NIRMALJIT KAUR, J. (ORAL) This is a petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C for issuance of directions to respondents No.2 and 3 to abstain from illegal involving, enroping and harassing the petitioners in false and frivolous case without their having committed any offence. It is further prayed that in case, the petitioners are required by the Ludhiana Police in any criminal case, they be accorded appropriate opportunity in form of written notice before their being arrested. Reply by way of affidavit has been filed by Assistant Commissioner of Police (East), District Ludhiana on behalf of respondents No.1 to 3. As per the reply, FIR No.75 dated 04.08.2010 at Police Station PAU, Ludhiana under Sections 379, 120-B IPC was registered on the Crl. Misc. No.M-2828 of 2011 2 statement of one Surinder Gupta, in which, it was alleged that Indica Car No.PB-10CA-0501 has been stolen. During investigation of the case, involvement of petitioner No.1 and Kewal Singh @ Tullu (husband of petitioner No.2) was found. On further investigation, untraced report under Section 173 Cr.P.C has been filed in case FIR No.75 dated 04.08.2010, whereas, FIR No.76 dated 08.08.2010 under Sections 379, 411, 413, 467, 468, 471, 472 and 120-B IPC was registered at Police Station PAU, Ludhiana against the husband of petitioner No.2 and others and during investigation of the case, involvement of petitioner No.2 and her husband was found in the crime. It was transpired that petitioner No.2 used to maintain bank account of the money procured by her husband by selling the stolen vehicles. Thus, petitioner No.1 is not required as untraced report has been filed in FIR No.75 dated 04.08.2010, whereas, petitioner no.2 is on anticipatory bail in FIR No.76 dated 08.08.2010. In view of the said report, no further order is called for. However, in case, the petitioners are still required in the above two cases, provisions of Section 160 Cr.P.C will be complied with. Disposed of as above. (NIRMALJIT KAUR) 21.03.2011 JUDGE gurpreet