IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Criminal Misc. No. M-17742 of 2009. Date of Decision: 12.8.2011. Mohit Goel .... Petitioner Versus State of Haryana & others .... Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAWAB SINGH Present: Mr. Sushil Jain, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. Satyavir Singh Yadav, DAG, Haryana. NAWAB SINGH.J (ORAL) By filing this petition, under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure, petitioner seeks direction to respondent No.1 to hand over the investigation of the complaint filed by the petitioner before the Superintendent of Police, Karnal. Prior to this petition, petitioner filed Criminal Misc. No. M-13254 of 2008 titled Mohit Goel vs. Adish Gupta & others before this Court. The petition was disposed of by Arvind Kumar. J. on May 23rd, 2008. For facilitation the order is reproduced as under:- “The instant petition is disposed of with the direction to the concerned authorities to look into the grievance of the present petitioner so made in the representations and dispose it of but in accordance with law.” 2. Again, the petitioner filed Criminal Misc. No. 17742-M of 2009 before this Court in which Arvind Kumar.J. passed the following order:- “The grievance of the petitioner is that despite orders passed by this Court vide order dated 23.5.2008 in Criminal Misc. No.13254 directing Superintendent of Police, Karnal and DGP, Haryana to look into the presentations Annexure Criminal Misc. No. M-17742 of 2009 (2) P-6 to P-8, the same have not been complied with. Heard. The instant petition is disposed of with a further direction that the concerned authorities to look into the representations Annexure P-6 and P-8 and dispose it of within a period of 30 days failing which this Court shall be constrained to take serious action. However, the liberty is given to the petitioner to approach this Court again if the orders are not complied with by the concerned authorities.” 3. In the present petition, grievance of the petitioner is that inspite of the orders passed by this Court, respondents did not decide his applications (Annexures P-6 and P-8). 4. The State has filed reply. It has been stated that on the report of Superintendent of Police (Annexure P-2), the representations (Annexures P-6 and P-8) were got investigated from the Deputy Superintendent of Police, City, Karnal who found the applications to be false. It has been also mentioned therein that First Information Report No.183 dated May 9th, 2008 under Section 447 etc. of Indian Penal Code was also registered against the petitioner and his brother. 5. Since the applications (Annexures P-6 and P-8) have already been inquired into and found to be false, no action is warranted. 6. Disposed of accordingly. 12.8.2011. (NAWAB SINGH) SN JUDGE