IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Crl.Misc. No. M- 5974 of 2011(O&M) Date of decision: 5.4.2011 Gian Chand and another ......Petitioners Vs. State of Punjab and others ...Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MRS.JUSTICE DAYA CHAUDHARY. PRESENT: Mr.Gopal Singh Nahel, Advocate, for the petitioners. **** ORDER Crl.Misc.No.18736-37 of 2011 Crl.Misc.are allowed as prayed for. Crl.Misc.No. M- 5974 of 2011 This petition has been filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for issuance of direction to respondents No. 2 and 3 to take action against respondent No.4 as her claim for separate residence has already been declined by learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sangrur vide order dated 26th November, 2010 passed in the application under Section 12 of Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 and she has already been summoned for commission of offence under Section 422 read with Section 448 IPC. Respondent No.4 is also threatening the petitioners to falsely implicate them in some criminal case. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that respondent No.4 has illegally trespassed into the house of the petitioners and as a result thereof, she has been summoned. The petitioners have also filed written complaint but no action has been Crl.Misc. No. M- 5974 of 2011 [2] taken against respondent No.4. The case was adjourned on the request of learned counsel for the petitioners to place on record certain documents to show that son of the petitioners is residing separately from them as they are residing in House No.787, Block-D Guru Nanak Colony, Sangrur whereas their son is living in House No. 3171 , Padhiya Street, Dhuri Gate, Sangrur but learned counsel for the petitioners has not been able to show from any document that their son has been residing separately and the factum of separate residence has not been proved. Even the learned counsel for the petitioners has not been able to pin point either in the petition or in the revision moved by them that even threat was given to them on any particular day. Moreover, merely by stating that respondent No.4 is giving threat to the petitioners and no action has been taken against her has neither been supported by any averment made in the petition nor by any document on record. Thus, the learned counsel for the petitioners has not been able to prove his case that son of petitioners is residing in separate house and threat was given by respondent No.4. No sufficient ground for issuance of direction has been made out. There is no merit in the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the petitioners and the petition being devoid of any merit is dismissed. (DAYA CHAUDHARY) JUDGE April 05, 2011 raghav Crl.Misc. No. M- 5974 of 2011 [3]