Crl. W. P. No. 1697 of 2011 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Case No. : Crl. W. P. No. 1697 of 2011 Date of Decision : September 07, 2011 Ashroom .... Petitioner Vs. State of Haryana .... Respondent CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE L. N. MITTAL * * * Present : None. * * * L. N. MITTAL, J. (Oral) : Application sent by post by Ashroom to Hon'ble the Chief Justice of this Court has been registered as instant Criminal Writ Petition and listed on judicial side. It is alleged in the application that petitioner's husband Sher Singh @ Sheru was taken away forcibly by 7-8 persons, who turned out to be from CIA Staff-II, Karnal, on the night between 01/02.08.2011. It is also alleged that on 03.08.2011 at 08:00 A.M., Dipender – SHO of Police Station Kunjpura, along with other police officials, also took away Afsar Khan (elder brother of petitioner's husband) and false FIR No.217 dated 03.08.2011 was registered against Afsar Khan in Police Station Kunjpura Crl. W. P. No. 1697 of 2011 2 under the Arms Act and Afsar Khan was produced in Court on 04.08.2011 in the aforesaid FIR. Petitioner's mother-in-law made application before Illaqa Magistrate, Karnal for producing Sher Singh @ Sheru. Officials of CIA Staff, Karnal replied that Sher Singh @ Sheru was not in their custody and that Sher Singh was required in connection with FIR No.277 dated 03.08.2011 under Sections 398 and 401 of the Indian Penal Code (in short – IPC) and under the Arms Act relating to Police Station Indri. Since Afsar Khan was arrested in a case and was produced in the Court, no action is required qua him. As regards petitioner's husband also, as per averments made in the application itself, he is also required in police case under Sections 398 and 401 IPC and under the Arms Act. Petitioner's mother-in-law had already moved Illaqa Magistrate for production of petitioner' husband Sher Singh @ Sheru. CIA Staff replied that he was not in their custody and that he was required in the aforesaid FIR. Remedy on judicial side regarding alleged detention of Sher Singh @ Sheru has already been availed of by petitioner's mother-in-law. In view of the aforesaid, no further action or order is required in the instant writ petition, which is accordingly disposed of. September 07, 2011 ( L. N. MITTAL ) monika JUDGE