C.W.P. No.2633 of 2011 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.W.P. No.2633 of 2011 Date of Decision.10.08.2011 Court on its own motion .....Petitioner Versus The State of Punjab through its Home Secretary, Civil Secretariat, Chandigarh and others .....Respondents Present: None for the petitioner. Mr. N.S. Pawar, Addl. A.G., Punjab for respondents. CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. KANNAN 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment ? No 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not ? No 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? No -.- K. KANNAN J.(ORAL) 1. The above writ petition had been taken on its own motion acting on a complaint by the person named Sneh wife of Ashok Kumar, who was said to have been illegally detained. This Court had ordered notice to the respondents and the State has filed reply. After giving the details of investigation that had been carried out on the basis of complaint, the reply has been filed through an affidavit of the Senior Superintendent of Police, Ferozepur, giving information that the complaint against Balram, Kalu, Sonu sons of Ram Narain, Shanti Devi wife of Ram Narain and Manju had been enquired into by the Deputy Superintendent of Police and after taking an opinion from the District Attorney, Ferozepur, it was found that no cognizable offence proved to have been committed in the jurisdiction of District of Ferozerpur. The C.W.P. No.2633 of 2011 -2- reply also suggests that Smt. Sneh had filed a complaint in the Police Station at Cantonment Ferozepur on 17.11.2010 and an enquiry had been conducted by the SHO, P.S., Cantonment Ferozepur and the same was also filed on 31.12.2010 since it did not show that there was any commission of offence. 2. The Court has ordered notice for appearance of the petitioner and also directed in its order dated 11.03.2011 that the petitioner shall be entitled to obtain the services of Free Legal Aid under the aegis of the Punjab Legal Services Authority. Registry has reported that notice has been served to the petitioner but no one has appeared to state the case of the petitioner or to refute that the report given by the police cannot be acted upon. Under the present circumstances, there is no need for any further action and the writ petition is taken as disposed of in the light of the reply given by the respondents. 3. The writ petition is disposed of. (K. KANNAN) JUDGE August 10, 2011 Pankaj*