CWP No.19479 of 2009.doc - 1 – HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH **** CWP No.19479 of 2009 (O&M) Date of Decision: 10.03.2011 **** Manjit Kaur & Ors. . . . . Petitioners VS. State of Punjab & Ors. . . . . Respondents **** CORAM : HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE SURYA KANT **** 1. Whether Reporters of local papers 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? **** Present: Mr. Karan Bhardwaj, Advocate for the petitioners Ms. Sudeepti Sharma, DAG Punjab Mr. Pardeep Goyal, Advocate for respondent No.7&9 Mr. PS Brar, Advocate for the applicant **** SURYA KANT J. (ORAL) (1). Petitioner No.1 is wife of respondent No.7. Petitioners No.2&3 are parents of petitioner No.1 whereas petitioner No.4 is her brother. They seek a mandamus to direct the respondent-Police Authorities to protect their lives which were alleged to have been threatened by respondents No.7 to 9. (2). Having regard to the fact that the genesis of the entire controversy lies in a matrimonial dispute, this Court vide order dated December 17, 2009 directed petitioner No.1 CWP No.19479 of 2009.doc - 2 – and respondent No.7 to appear before the Mediation and Reconciliation Centre and the matter was ordered to be listed there. The Mediators have reported that despite their best efforts the matrimonial dispute could not be amicably sorted out. (3). It is not in dispute that respondent No.5 ASI Jaswinder Singh who was alleged inter-meddling in the personal affairs of petitioner No.1 and her husband, has since been transferred to some other place under the orders of this Court. (4). As regards the status of investigation, it is informed by Ms. Sudeepti Sharma, learned DAG Punjab, on instructions from Sukhdev Singh, Head Constable, that the report after investigation has already been submitted. (5). In the light of the changed circumstances, it does not appear expedient to continue with these proceedings, which are accordingly disposed of with liberty to the petitioners to approach the higher authorities, if so required, in future. (6). Dasti . 10.03.2011 vishal shonkar (S u r y a K a n t) Judge