IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Crl. Misc. No. M-16417 of 2010 Date of decision : 10.8.2010 Dayanand …. Petitioner Versus State of Haryana and Others ….. Respondents Present : None for the petitioner. Mr. Pawan Singh, AAG, Haryana. *** S.S. SARON, J. The communication dated 6.8.2010 from the Superintendent of Police, Mahendergarh to Advocate General, Haryana submitted by learned counsel for the State is taken on record. The petition has been filed under Section 482 CrPC for directing respondents No.1 to 4 to protect the life and liberty of the petitioner from respondents No.5 to 13. A copy of the petition was given to the learned State counsel on 8.7.2010 so as to enable him to seek instructions in the matter. Reply of Sh. Mohinder Singh, HPS, Deputy Superintendent of Police, Mahendergarh was filed on behalf of respondent No.1. In para 12 of the petition it was submitted that a representation dated 24.2.2010 (Annexure P1) was sent through registered post on 26.2.2010 to the official respondents. The postal receipt (Annexure P2) had been placed on record. Crl. Misc. No. M-16417 of 2010 [2] In the reply filed by Sh. Mohinder Singh, HPS, Deputy Superintendent of Police, Mahendergarh it was submitted that the petitioner had not sent any representation dated 24.2.2010 (Annexure P1) nor any such representation was received by the private respondents. This Court vide order dated 27.7.2010 observed that averments regarding the receipts of representation by private respondents appeared to be misleading as the representation was not sent nor was it required to be sent to the private respondents. The representation was sent by registered post to the official respondents only and it was not understood as to how it had not been received by the official respondents when it was sent by registered post. Learned State counsel had taken time to verify the position. In terms of the communication dated 6.8.2010 submitted by the learned State counsel it is accepted that the representation dated 24.2.2010 (Annexure P1) filed by the petitioner had been received in Police Station Kanina on 13.3.2010. Besides, some other complaints filed by Smt. Ompati wife of Raj Singh and Smt. Prem widow of Sh. Mohinder Singh resident of Chelawas Police Station Kanina, District Mahendergarh against the petitioner Sh. Daya Nand were also received in Police Station Kanina on 9.3.2010 and 11.3.2010 respectively. The said complainants are the daughters-in- law of the petitioner Daya Nand. The other persons against whom the petitioner is demanding security are also from the family of the petitioner. As no cognizable offence was made out on the complaints of either party, necessary preventive action under Sections 107/151 and 107/150 CrPC was taken by SHO Police Station Kanina Crl. Misc. No. M-16417 of 2010 [3] on 22.3.2010. The said facts were not brought on record while filing the reply by Mohinder Singh, HPS, Deputy Superintendent of Police, Mahendergarh inadvertently or mistakenly for which he had been strictly warned to be more careful in future. It is submitted that SHO Police Station, Kanina has taken sufficient action on the representation of the petitioner and no further action is required on the representation of the petitioner at this stage. Keeping in view the aforesaid fact that preventive action under Sections 107/151 and 107/150 CrPC has been taken, no further action is required to be taken in the present petition. Accordingly, the Crl. Misc. petition is dismissed. (S.S. SARON) JUDGE August 10, 2010 amit