IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Crl. Misc. No. M-35583 of 2009 Date of decision: March 16, 2010 Mohan Lal and others Petitioners Versus State of Punjab and others Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE DAYA CHAUDHARY Present: Mr. S.S. Rangi, Advocate for the petitioners Mr. Raghbir Chaudhary, Sr. DAG Punjab for the respondent – Sate DAYA CHAUDHARY, J. (ORAL) The present petition has been filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for issuance of directions to respondents not to harass the petitioners unnecessarily as no criminal case is pending against them. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that houses of the petitioners were raided by the police and they were being harassed without any sufficient reason. Learned counsel for the petitioners further submits that they are being pressurized by the police to know the whereabouts of Vikram who is son of petitioners No. 1 and 2. Vikram has already been disowned by them and notice to this effect has been published in newspaper “Daily Spokes Man' on 27.7.2008, specifically mentioning therein that Vikram has been disinherited from the property of his family and now he has no relation with other family members and they are not responsible for any act on his part in future. Crl. Misc. No. M-35583 of 2009 2 Notice of motion was issued on 16.12.2009. In response thereof, reply has been filed on behalf of respondents No. 1 to 3, mentioning therein that neither the residential house was raided nor the petitioners were harassed by the police and even no case has been registered against said Vikram and no complaint has been received against him. Keeping in view the stand taken by the respondents that the petitioners were never harassed by the respondents and no case ever was registered against them, no further interference is called for and the present petition is dismissed as having become infructuous. Keeping in view the stand taken by the respondents learned counsel for the petitioners submits that petitioners are still appearing before the police on a complaint filed against Vikram on the basis of some complaint filed by parents of Rimpy. Although the petitioners are not entitled for blanket direction from this Court but still they are at liberty to move the Court by taking this plea as no case is pending against Vikram. It is made clear that if any complaint is filed against the petitioners with regard to Vikram, the petitioners would be given one week prior notice before arrest. (DAYA CHAUDHARY) 16.03.2010 JUDGE reena