Crl. Misc. No.M-16003 of 2011 -: 1 :- IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Crl. Misc. No.M-16003 of 2011 Date of decision: May 25, 2011. Amit Sethi ... Petitioner(s) v. State of Haryana and others ... Respondent(s) CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA Present: Shri Ashwani Gaur, Advocate, for the petitioner(s). Shri Amit Rana, Deputy Advocate General, Haryana, for the respondents. Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia , J. (Oral): Present petition has been filed under section 482 Cr.P.C. praying that the police has not been able to take action against those who were causing nuisance on his mobile phone. This Court on May 23, 2011 had passed the following order:- “Learned Counsel states that the petitioner has been receiving threatening calls on his mobile phone at odd hours. He further contends that even though the petitioner has changed his mobile number still there is no respite. Issue notice of motion. On the asking of Court, Mr. Sandeep Singh Mann, Sr. DAG, Haryana accepts notice on behalf of the respondents. A copy of the petition has been supplied to him. Counsel for the State is directed to obtain necessary information from the concerned quarters as to how the Crl. Misc. No.M-16003 of 2011 -: 2 :- grievance of the petitioner can be redressed. He shall further seek instructions whether in such cases necessary relief can be provided to the harassed recipient of phone calls. List on 25th May, 2011.” Counsel for the State, on instructions from Probation Officer Kailash, S.H.O. Police Station Palam Vihar, Gurgaon, has stated that a follow up of the telephone numbers, from which alleged threatening calls were received by the petitioner, was carried out and it has surfaced that most of the telephone calls have originated from different helpline numbers. Counsel for the State has stated that the possibility that the phone calls were made on the mobile phone of the petitioner from unknown PCOs, cannot be ruled out. Counsel for the petitioner has stated that he is satisfied with the efforts made by the police and in case in future any such threatening call is received, he will again approach the concerned police Station. Counsel for the State has stated that as and when the petitioner approaches the concerned Police Station, necessary follow up action shall be taken. Counsel for the petitioner submits that in view of the statement made by Counsel for the State, the present petition may be disposed of. Ordered accordingly. [Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia] May 25, 2011. Judge kadyan