Crl. Misc. No. M-1105 of 2010 1 IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Crl. Misc. No. M-1105 of 2010 (O&M) Date of decision: 9.7.2010 Sarabjit Singh ...Petitioner Versus State of Punjab and others ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJAN GUPTA Present: None for the petitioner. Mr. Shailesh Gupta, Deputy Advocate General, Punjab for respondents No.1 to 7. Mr. Harpal Singh Taragarh, Advocate for respondents No.8 to 12. Rajan Gupta, J. (oral) This is a petition U/S 482 Cr.P.C. seeking a direction to official respondents for protection of life and liberty of the petitioner as also to take appropriate action against respondents No.8 to 16. It has been averred in the petition that the petitioner apprehends danger to his life and liberty at the hands of respondents No.8 to 16 and thus, he deserves to be granted police protection. It has also been stated that appropriate action against respondents No.8 to 16 needs to be taken. Learned State counsel, however, submits that representation dated 5th January, 2010, Annexure P-2 submitted by the petitioner was looked into by the SHO, Police Station Kathu Nangal and it was found Crl. Misc. No. M-1105 of 2010 2 that the allegation regarding incident dated 4th January, 2010 where false and frivolous. According to learned counsel the entire dispute was amicably resolved between the parties. The matter had also been referred to Lok Adalat. In view of the compromise dated 20th December, 2008, disputed land was handed over to the rightful claimant. He, therefore, submits that no cause of action survives in this petition. He has referred to affidavit of Gursewak Singh, Deputy Superintendent of Police, Majitha filed in this regard. No one has put in appearance on behalf of the petitioner to controvert the submissions made by learned State counsel. In view of the fact that representation preferred by the petitioner has already been considered by the concerned police officer and allegations levelled in the complaint have been found to be false, no further direction is required to be given by this court. The petition is, thus, devoid of merit and is hereby dismissed. (RAJAN GUPTA) JUDGE 9.7.2010 'rajpal'