Crl. Misc. No. M-30501 of 2010 (1) IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Crl. Misc. No. M-30501 of 2010 DATE OF DECISION: 15.03.2011 Rimpjit Kaur ..........Petitioner Versus State of Punjab and others ..........Respondents BEFORE:- HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE DAYA CHAUDHARY Present:- Mr. M.S. Uppal, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Gaurav Garg Dhuriwala, AAG, Punjab. Mr. R.S. Pandher, Advocate for respondents No. 4 to 7. **** DAYA CHAUDHARY, J. The present petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed on behalf of Rimpjit Kaur for issuing directions to respondents No.2 and 3 to protect her life and liberty at the instance of respondents No.4 to 13. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that earlier under the threat and pressure, the petitioner solemnized marriage with respondent No.4 and now she is residing with her parents and is apprehending threat at the instance of private respondents. Learned counsel further contends that a representation has also been made to police authorities in this regard but no action has been taken. Reply on behalf of the respondent-State has already been filed and the same is on record. Learned counsel for the respondent-State submits that earlier Crl. Misc. No. M-30501 of 2010 (2) petitioner and respondent No.4 solemnized their marriage and have also filed Crl. Misc. No. M-12905 of 2010 for protection as they were apprehending threat at the instance of parents of the petitioner and vide order 5.5.2010, the said petition was disposed of with a direction to SSP, Mansa to look into the allegations as contained in the petition and take necessary steps in accordance with law if the situation so warrants. Learned counsel for the State further submits that subsequently a habeas corpus petition bearing Cr.W.P. No. 1090 of 2010 was filed before this Court by respondent No.4 for the release of detenue-Rimpjit Kaur (petitioner), wherein, petitioner appeared and made a statement in the Court that she did not want to remain with her husband and wanted to remain with her parents and on the basis of statement made by the petitioner, habeas corpus petition was disposed of. Learned counsel also submits that as far as protection is concerned, no such representation has been received by the police authorities as stated in the petition with regard to subsequent threat. Learned counsel also brought to the notice of the Court as far as representation dated 19.5.2010 (Annexure P-1) is concerned, the same was inquired into and the allegations levelled therein of rape against respondent No.4 were found to be false as petitioner solemnized marriage with respondent No.4 without any pressure upon her in any manner and they both have filed petition before this Court for protection. Learned counsel for respondents No.4 to 7 submits that as far as allegations mentioned in representation dated 19.5.2010 (Annexure P-1) are concerned, the same were there at the time of disposal of habeas corpus petition but no such statement was made by the petitioner at that time and the present petition has been filed with some vested interest just to implicate the private respondents in false case. In view of the submissions made by learned counsel for the Crl. Misc. No. M-30501 of 2010 (3) parties and the fact that earlier also petition was filed by petitioner and respondent No.4 for protection and both of them were present in the Court at that time and petitioner was apprehending threat at the instance of her parents but subsequently at the time of hearing of habeas corpus petition, she made a statement before this Court that she did not want to remain with her husband and wanted to remain with her parents only but nothing was said at that time with regard to pressure or any threat at the instance of private respondents. Now in the present petition, it has been mentioned that the petitioner has been threatened by the private respondents and she is apprehending threat at their instance, whereas, learned counsel for the respondent-State submits that no such complaint has been given to the police authorities and earlier complaint was looked into by respondent No.2 but nothing was found and the allegations were found to be incorrect and false. In view of the above, no direction can be issued at this stage as the petitioner has filed the present petition without approaching the police authorities. The petition being devoid of any merit is hereby dismissed. However, in case any threat is there, the petitioner is at liberty to give complaint/representation to the police authorities and the police authorities will consider the same by taking into consideration the allegations mentioned in the complaint/representation and if the concerned authority comes to the conclusion that any serious threat is there, necessary action would be taken in accordance with law. March 15, 2011 (DAYA CHAUDHARY) pooja JUDGE Crl. Misc. No. M-30501 of 2010 (4) Note:-Whether this case is to be referred to the Reporter .......Yes/No