IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Criminal Misc M- 9084 of 2010 Date of decision: 21.4.2010 Sunita Rani …Petitioner Versus State of Punjab and ors …Respondents Present: Mr JS Sandhu, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr Shilesh Gupta, DAG Punajb. S.S.SARON, J. Heard counsel for the parties. This petition has been filed under Section 482 CrPC for directing respondents-1 to 3 to take legal action on the representations dated 25.2.2010 and 19.3.2010 (P2 and P3 respectively) and for further directing these respondents to protect the life and liberty of the petitioner from respondents-4 to 7. The petitioner is living at the address as mentioned in the head note of the petition, after her marriage with Vipan Kumar. It is alleged that the trouble started when the partition of the house was done by the father-in- law of the petitioner on 8.4.2003. In the partition, the father-in-law of the petitioner gave first floor (two-room set) of the house to Madhu Rani who is the sister-in-law of the petitioner. The first floor was given to her as her husband had left her after converting to Islam and marrying a woman at Delhi. In the partition, the ground floor was given to the petitioner’s husband. A Will was also executed in respect of the partition. It is stated Cr Misc M- 9084 of 2010 2 that after 6 months, the petitioner’s sister-in-law namely Madhu Rani claimed that she has a share in the ground floor also. Because of this, the trouble started in the house. However, with the intervention of respectables and elders of the family, the matter was amicably resolved. Thereafter, respondents-4 to 7 it is alleged, at the behest of the petitioner’s sister-in-law started issuing threats to the petitioner and her husband and started picking up fights with the husband of the petitioner on one pretext or the other. After leaving the husband of the petitioner, the abovesaid persons i.e. respondents-4 to 7 started quarreling with the petitioner and started issuing threats to her and her minor children with dire consequences. Aggrieved against the injustice, the petitioner gave an application to the Police, but no action was taken. The copies of the previous applications (P2 and P3) have also been placed on record. A copy of this petition was given to the learned State counsel so as to enable him to seek instructions. Reply by way of an affidavit of Sh Sukhdev Singh Virk, DSP Malerkotla has been filed in Court today. The same is taken on record. It is submitted that after receiving the representation dated 19.3.2010 (P3), the SSP Sangrur sought a report regarding earlier application, if any, made by the petitioner. On this, the SSP Sangrur found that no application had been made by the petitioner. However, respondent-2 directed the SHO PS Malerkotla (respondent-3) to investigate and report into the matter. A thorough inquiry was conducted by the SHO City Malerkotla (respondent-3). Statements of respectable persons of the locality were recorded and the SHO PS City Malerkotla did not find any veracity in the allegations made by the petitioner in her application/representation. The actual position, it is stated, is that Vipan Kumar – husband of the petitioner Cr Misc M- 9084 of 2010 3 has borrowed a huge amount from respondents-4 to 7 and other persons of the locality. In this regard, a criminal case under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act was pending at Civil Courts, Malerkotla and the husband of the petitioner was declared a PO by the learned Court. Therefore, the only motive of the petitioner behind filing the present petition and the alleged representation is to escape from the legal liability of her husband. In the circumstances, it may be noticed that there is no material to show that the representation (P2) was submitted to the SSP Malerkotla. On asking of the Court, the learned counsel has shown a postal receipt which is issued from the High Court Post Office in favour of SSP Sangrur. The present petition itself has been filed on the same day i.e. 23.3.2010. In fact, the representation (P2) is without date. The DSP Malerkotla on affidavit has stated that no such representation was received. Therefore, it is evident that the entire petition has been filed to wriggle out of the proceedings initiated by respondents-4 to 7 under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, as has been deposed in the affidavit of DSP Malerkotla which is based on the inquiry conducted by the SHO PS City Malerkotla. Consequently, the present petition being frivolous is dismissed. 21.4.2010 ( S.S.SARON ) ASR Judge