IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. C.W.P. No.15614 of 2010. [O&M] Date of Decision: 16th February, 2011. Menon Baldev Singh through his daughter Geeta Menon Petitioner through Mr. K.S.Dhaliwal, Advocate Versus State of Punjab & Ors. Respondents through Mr. H.S.Brar, Addl.AG, Punjab. Mr. Kanwaljit Singh, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Ajay Singla, Advocate for respondents No. 5 and 6. Mr. S.P.Garg, Advocate, for respondent No. 7. Mr. Pawan Kumar, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Karan Bhardwaj, Advocate, for respondents No. 8 and 9. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURYA KANT. 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] The petitioner seeks a Mandamus to direct the State of Punjab and its Police Authorities to protect his life and liberty and of his daughter which is alleged to have been threatened by respondents No. 5 to 10. [2]. The genesis of the controversy lies in a dispute over the property which was owned by the petitioner and his brothers etc. It is not expedient or desirable for this Court to express any views on the merits of the said dispute as admittedly a civil suit [No. 372 dated 10.12.2008] titled as Menon Baldev Singh & Anr. V Jagtar Singh & Ors. in relation thereto is pending in the Court of learned Additional Civil Judge [Senior Division], Rajpura. However, learned counsel representing the petitioner as well as respondents No. 5 to 10 jointly state that they have no objection if the aforesaid civil suit is transferred to the Civil Court at Chandigarh. [3]. Learned District Judge, Patiala is accordingly directed to send the records of Civil Suit No.372 dated 10.12.2008 titled as Menon Baldev Singh & Anr. V Jagtar Singh & Ors. pending in the Court of Shri Gopal Arora, Additional Civil Judge [Senior Division], Rajpura to the District Judge, Chandigarh who shall entrust the same to a court of competent jurisdiction. The parties are directed to appear before the learned District Judge at Chandigarh on 14.03.2011. [4]. Adverting to the alleged threat to the life and liberty of the daughter of the petitioner through whom this petition has been filed, in the peculiar facts and circumstances of this case when the whole family is settled abroad and she appears to be all alone here to pursue the litigation, I am of the considered opinion that she needs to be adequately protected. The interim order dated 06.09.2010 is accordingly made absolute. In addition, the SSP, Chandigarh is also directed to ensure that no harm is caused to the life and liberty of the petitioner's daughter and if the need be, additional security shall be provided to her. The daughter of the petitioner may seek further directions from this Court, if so required in future. [5]. The third grievance of the petitioner pertains to non- registration of a criminal case against respondents No. 5 to 10 even though a cognizable offence is said to have been made out against them. The Senior Superintendent of Police, Patiala, who is present in Court, informs that the representation made by the petitioner to the Director General of Police, Punjab was forwarded to his office for redressal of the petitioner's grievances on 19.05.2010. However, before any action could be taken pursuant thereto, the private respondents also represented to the Director General of Police, Punjab on 11.10.2010 and their representation is pending inquiry before the Superintendent of Police [D], Patiala. [6]. Having heard learned counsel for the parties on the above noticed third aspect of the controversy and with a view to give a fair opportunity to both the parties to represent their respective claim on the element of 'criminality' if any, involved in the case and without touching the merits of the allegations or counter-allegations, I deem it appropriate to direct the Director General of Police, Punjab to entrust the representations received from the petitioner as well as the private respondents to a directly recruited member of the Indian Police Service, who is from outside the State of Punjab and is preferably in the rank of Superintendent/Senior Superintendent of Police, within one week of receipt of a copy of this order. The Officer to whom the representations are to be entrusted is directed to hold a fact finding inquiry into the allegations/counter-allegations in an impartial, fair and dispassionate manner and take further necessary action in accordance with law, within a period of one month. [7]. Disposed of. Dasti. February 16, 2011. ( SURYA KANT ) dinesh JUDGE