IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA, CHANDIGARH Criminal Miscellaneous No. M-9209 of 2010 Date of Decision: March 29, 2010 Bhupinder Singh .....PETITIONER(S) VERSUS State of Punjab & Others .....RESPONDENT(S) . . . CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAI LAMBA PRESENT: - Mr. Baltej Singh Sidhu, Advocate, for the petitioner. . . . AJAI LAMBA, J (Oral) In regard to the same relief, a petition namely Criminal Writ Petition No.617 of 2009 had been brought to the Court by wife of the petitioner namely Satnam Kaur. The petitioner had been impleaded as respondent No.4. Learned counsel contends that till date, Gagandeep Kaur has not been traced. Directions be issued to the respondents to trace Gagandeep Kaur and produce her before the Court. I have considered the issue. In regard to Gagandeep Kaur, the following has been recorded in Order dated 4.3.2010 passed by this Court while dealing with Crl. Misc. No. M-9209 of 2010 [2] Criminal Writ Petition No.617 of 2009:- “In regard to Gagandeep Kaur, it transpires that she has been missing. SSP Ferozepur, District Ferozepur was directed to have Gagandeep Kaur d/o Satnam Kaur and Bhupinder Singh produced in court. Since needful was not done, the Court was constrained on calling Sh. SPS Parmar, SSP Ferozepur to Court. Sh. SPS Parmar appeared on the last date of hearing and is present even today. Sh. SPS Parmar states that some material has been collected during inquiry to indicate that Gagandeep Kaur has now married to one Suraj. Sister of Gagandeep Kaur has namely Manpreet Kaur received Email from Gagandeep Kaur informing about marriage. Manpreet Kaur forwarded the said E.mail to her brother namely Amandeep Singh. Be that as it may, Gagandeep Kaur has not been located. Learned counsel for the petitioner, at this stage, contends that in the interest of unity of family, the petitioner would like to withdraw the petition. Dismissed as withdrawn.” A petition for similar relief was earlier filed by wife of the petitioner. Gagandeep Kaur had married one Suraj and had eloped with him. No offence, prima facie seems to have been committed. Considering the totality of facts and circumstances of the case, no ground for interference under inherent jurisdiction is made out. The petition is dismissed. (AJAI LAMBA) March 29, 2010 JUDGE avin