COCP No. 1552 of 2006 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH COCP 1552 of 2006 Date of decision: February 11, 2009 Amrik Singh …..PETITIONER Versus S.K.Asthana, SSP, Patiala …..RESPONDENT CORAM: HON’BLE MR JUSTICE T.P.S.MANN PRESENT: Mr Navkesh Singh, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr M.C.Berry, Additional Advocate General, Punjab for the respondent. T.P.S.MANN, J. (Oral): According to the petitioner, the respondent did not decide the representation submitted by the petitioner despite the order passed by this Court on March 13, 2008. Reply has been filed by the respondent. It has been stated therein that after receipt of the order dated March 13, 2008, the respondent directed the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Patran to enquire into the complaint of the petitioner. The Deputy Superintendent of Police, Patran returned the papers with the request that the investigation was being conducted by the Superintendent of Police (Detective), Patiala. Accordingly, the Superintendent of Police (Detective), Patiala was asked to enquire into the complaint, who recommended that the FIR had been got registered falsely by the petitioner. Accordingly, it was recommended that un-trace report be prepared and sent to the Court concerned. The enquiry report submitted by the Superintendent of Police (Detective), Patiala was examined by the respondent, who then came to the conclusion that the same was in order. The enquiry report was, accordingly, approved and un-trace COCP No. 1552 of 2006 2 report prepared and submitted in the Court of Ilaqa Magistrate. During the pendency of the same, the petitioner opposed the un-trace report by stating that he did not agree with the investigation conducted by the police. However, on account of the fact that a private complaint had already been filed by the petitioner, learned Ilaqa Magistrate ordered that the cancellation report be attached with the complaint case. The complaint is now pending before the learned trial Court for 24.2.2009. In view of the above, there is no merit in the petition, which is, accordingly, dismissed. Rule is discharged. February 11, 2009 (T.P.S.MANN) Pds. JUDGE