CRM No. M-32430 of 2011 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRM No. M-32430 of 2011 Date of decision: 31.10.2011 Jagsir Singh ....Petitioner Versus The State of Punjab and others ....Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK SINGH Present: - Mr. Sant Pal Singh Sidhu, Advocate, for the petitioner. 1.Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2.Whether to be referred to the Reporters or not? 3.Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? ***** ALOK SINGH, J (ORAL) Notice of motion. On being asked, Mr. Raghbir Chaudhary, learned Senior Deputy Advocate General, Punjab, has accepted notice on behalf of the State. With the consent of learned counsel for the parties, present petition is being disposed of finally at the admission stage. Record reveals that earlier petitioner has filed Crl. Misc. No. M-29295 of 2010, which was disposed of by this Court with the direction to decide the representation of the petitioner. However, after the order by this Court in Crl. Misc. No. M-29295 of 2010, police started pressurizing the petitioner and was adamant to implicate the petitioner in false cases, therefore, petitioner had moved another application before this Court being Crl. Misc. No.31857 of 2011 in Crl. CRM No. M-32430 of 2011 -2- Misc. No. M-29295 of 2010, which was disposed of by this Court vide order dated 27.9.2011. Thereafter, petitioner moved another petition being Crl. Misc. No. M-23171 of 2011, which was disposed of by this Court vide order dated 22.9.2011. Order dated 22.9.2011 reads as under: - “In view of the reply to para No.1 of the preliminary objection filed by the State that petitioner is not required by the police in a criminal case registered vide FIR No. 43 dated 08.06.2011, under Sections 336, 323, 148 and 149 of IPC and 27-54-59 Arms Act by the police of police station, Baghapurana, District Moga, learned counsel for petitioner intends to withdraw the present petition, at this stage. Dismissed as withdrawn, as prayed for. Needless to mentioned that the police of Police Station Baghapurana, District Moga will give one week prior notice to the petitioner, if he is required in the indicated case at any subsequent stage.” Learned counsel for the petitioner has vehemently argued that now petitioner is being harassed by respondents No.2 and 3 to settle the dispute with respondent No.6. Learned counsel has further argued that ordinarily police should not interfere in the family dispute more particularly property disputes, however, petitioner is being harassed unnecessarily and there is no FIR registered against the petitioner so far. Mr. Chaudhary, learned Sr. DAG, Punjab, has fairly submitted that if no FIR is registered against the petitioner, there is no question of calling the petitioner for interrogation in the police station. He has further submitted that if petitioner's presence is required for interrogation, notice under Section 160 Cr.P.C. ought to have been issued to the petitioner. Considering totality of the facts and circumstances of the case, present petition is being disposed of with the direction that if petitioner's CRM No. M-32430 of 2011 -3- presence is required in the police station, notice under Section 160 Cr.P.C. shall be issued to the petitioner. If petitioner's arrest is required, 72 hours prior notice shall be given to the petitioner on the complaint lodged against the petitioner by his father, respondent No.6. (Alok Singh) Judge October 31, 2011 R.S.