Criminal Misc. No. M-26900 of 2009 (O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH **** Criminal Misc. No. M-26900 of 2009 (O&M) Date of Decision:24.09.2009 Sandeep Singh and others .....Petitioners Vs. State of Punjab and others .....Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARBANS LAL Present:- Ms. Poonam Tara, Advocate for the petitioners. **** HARBANS LAL, J. This petition has been moved by Sandeep Singh, Rajwant Kaur and Manjit Kaur under Section 482 read with Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure seeking directions to respondents No.2 and 3 to issue advance notice to the petitioners for a period of 14 days in the event of their arrest in any case registered at the behest of respondent No.4 either under Sections 406/498-A/34 of IPC. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioners. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted with full force that in view of Savitri Aggarwal & Others v. State of Maharashtra & Another, 2009(3) Recent Criminal Reports (Criminal) 792, the prayer of the petitioners may be allowed. I have well considered this submission. In re: State of Maharashtra v. Mohd. Rashid and another, 2005(7) Supreme Court Criminal Misc. No. M-26900 of 2009 (O&M) -2- Cases 56, Hon'ble the Supreme Court set aside the direction of the High Court that the petitioner therein shall not be arrested in any crime except after written notice to him. In re: D.K. Ganesh Basu v. P.T. Manokaran and others, 2007(2) Recent Criminal Reports (Criminal) 161 (SC), the Hon'ble Supreme Court after considering similar direction to the investigating agency granting advance notice relying on Adri Dharan Das's case and other earlier decisions, set aside the order of the learned Single Judge of the Madras High Court. In re: Sunita Devi v. State of Bihar and another, 2005(1) Supreme Court Cases 608, the Hon'ble Supreme Court set aside the order of the High Court granting unconditional protection. In re: Bharat Inder Singh Chahal's case (supra) by relying upon the above referred decisions, the Division Bench of this Court held that “while considering the claim of pre-arrest in a petition filed under Section 438 of the Code normally/ generally blanket protection such as not to arrest the petitioner without intimation to him or give advance notice before arresting him should not be given.” It is further held that “it is made clear that we are not going into the merits of the allegations made in the complaint and it is for the investigating agency and the ultimate court to find out the truth about the allegations made. On perusal of the particulars referred to above, in the light of the principles repeatedly held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, we are of the view that there cannot be any blanket direction for giving advance notice fixing certain period in view of the facts noticed here. However, the discretion vested in a court under Section 430 of the Code of Criminal Procedure would be exercised depending on the extra-ordinary circumstances based on acceptable materials.” Criminal Misc. No. M-26900 of 2009 (O&M) -3- Adverting to the facts of the instant case, in view of the afore- referred authorities, I am satisfied that the petitioners have not made out a strong and special circumstances for giving direction to the respondent- State for advance notice before effecting their arrest in the case. With the above observations, this petition is disposed of. September 24, 2009 ( HARBANS LAL ) renu JUDGE