IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Crl. M. No.2603-M of 2011 Date of Decision:23.5.2011 Premo Devi .... Petitioner Versus State of Haryana and others .... Respondents CORAM: Hon'ble Ms. Justice Nirmaljit Kaur Present: Mr. D.S. Nain, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Sidharth Sarup, D.A.G. Haryana. **** 1.Whether Reporters of Local Newspapers 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? NIRMALJIT KAUR, J.(Oral) The present petition has been filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for issuance of direction to respondents No.1 to 4 for registration of a criminal case against respondents No.5 to 9 under Sections 362/365/366/452/506/148/149 and 120-B IPC for illegally trespassing the house and forcefully abducting and taking away the girl of the petitioner. In view of the same, notice of motion was issued and respondent No.6 was ordered to be served through respondent No.4. Respondent No.6 was also directed to be present in the Court along with alleged prosecutrix-Meena. Thereafter, in pursuance to the order dated 7.4.2011, explanation by way of affidavit of Kashmir Singh SHO, P.S. Pundri, District Kaithal is filed. As per the said affidavit, despite the best efforts, respondent No.6 could not be traced out although daughter of petitioner Meena was served. It is further submitted that on 14.2.2011, Meena daughter of the petitioner was contacted. She stated that she was residing at Sunderpur village at Kurukshetra in a rented accommodation. A copy of petition was also supplied to her and it was intimated to her to appear before Crl. M. No.2603-M of 2011 -2- the Court on the date fixed. She also issued receipt about it. The same is also attached as R-1. However, no one has come present. Even otherwise, reply dated 15.2.2011 by way of affidavit of Naripjit Singh, DSP, (AEC) on behalf of respondents No.3 and 4 has been filed. As per the said reply, an enquiry was got conducted and an enquiry report dated 10.7.2010 was submitted to the Superintendent of Police, Kaithal. During enquiry, it was found that from the marriage with Radha, Meena had two children one boy and one daughter. She was having strained relations with her husband and used to resided with her mother at village Naina. She left the house out of her own will along with her daughter on 14.4.2010 and the allegations levelled against the family members of Ranbir were found to be false. During enquiry, the petitioner also made statement that she had gone with Ranbir with her free will. In view of the above, it is apparent that the Meena daughter of the petitioner has left the house of her own. She has not made come present in the Court in spite of the fact that she was aware of the order dated 7.4.2011 and the copy of the petition was duly received by her. Accordingly, the present petition is dismissed being devoid of merit. 23.5.2011 ( NIRMALJIT KAUR ) rajeev JUDGE