IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Writ Petition No.15053 of 2010 Date of Decision : August 23, 2010. Surinder Mittal .....Petitioner versus Union of India and others .....Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SURYA KANT. Present : Mr.Ranjan Lakhanpal, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr.K.D.S.Sidhu, Deputy Advocate General, Punjab. -.- 1. Whether Reporters of Local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? --- Surya Kant, J. (Oral) Notice of motion to respondent Nos.2 & 3 only at this stage. Mr.K.D.S.Sidhu, learned Deputy Advocate General, Punjab, accepts notice on their behalf. In view of the nature of order which I propose to pass, neither any notice is required to be issued to the other respondents nor the counter-reply from respondent Nos.2 & 3 is needful at this stage. The petitioner has a matrimonial dispute with his wife. On her complaint, FIR No.14 dated 9.1.2009 under Sections 498-A/406/323 IPC has been registered against the petitioner at Police Station, Phagwara City. Similarly, another FIR No.15 dated 10.1.2009 under Sections 294/509/500/506 IPC has also been registered against the petitioner at the same Police Station on a complaint made by Sandeep Kaur Dhamrait C.W.P.No .15053 of 2010 2 daughter of Gurmit Singh Dhamrait r/o village Shekhupur, Tehsil Phagwara. The petitioner alleges that both the afore-stated FIRs have been registered at the instance of respondent No.4 who, at the relevant time, was posted as Senior Superintendent of Police, Kapurthala and is a close relative of the petitioner. Various factual stories which give rise to disputed issues, have been narrated in the writ petition seeking an enquiry into the alleged mis-use of powers by respondent No.4. As per the averments made in the writ petition, the petitioner has already made a complaint to respondent No.3 on 31.1.2009 (Annexure P-20) alleging mis-use of powers by respondent No.4 but it appears that the action, if any taken, on that complaint has not been communicated to the petitioner. Having heard learned counsel for the petitioner and without expressing any views on the allegations made, especially when respondent No.4 has not been heard at this stage, I deem it appropriate to dispose of this writ petition with a direction to the Director General of Police, Punjab, to consider the complaint dated 31.1.2009 (Annexure P-20) said to have been made by the petitioner within a period of two months from the date of receiving a certified copy of this order and communicate the consequential decision taken thereupon to the petitioner. Ordered accordingly. Dasti. August 23, 2010 (SURYA KANT) Mohinder JUDGE