CRM No. M-26476 of 2009 1 IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. CRM No. M-26476 of 2009 (O&M) Date of decision: 18.09.2009 Kabal Singh and others ...Petitioners Versus State of Punjab and others ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJAN GUPTA Present: Mr. Karanjit Singh, Advocate, for the petitiones. Rajan Gupta, J (oral). This is a petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. wherein a prayer has been made for issuance of direction to respondents No.2 and 3 not to harass the petitioners at the behest of respondents No.4 & 5. Learned counsel for the petitioners has argued that the petitioners were being unnecessarily harassed by the police in view of the matrimonial dispute between petitioner No.3 and respondent No.4 and his father respondent No.5. According to the counsel, the petitioners are being forced to withdraw their complaint under Section 498-A, 406 IPC as well as complaint under the Protection of Women from Domestic Voilance Act, 2005. He has, therefore, prayed that a direction requires to be issued to respondents No.2 & 3 not to harass the petitioners. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioners and perused the record annexed with the petition. CRM No. M-26476 of 2009 2 It appears that the petitioner No.3 got married to respondent No.4 on 9th May, 2007. Due to differences between the couple, petitioner No.3 filed a criminal complaint against respondents No.4 and 5 and other family members under Sections 406, 498-A IPC. Another complaint was preferred under Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Voilance Act, 2005. Proceedings in the said complaint are stated to be pending. Learned counsel for the petitioners has not been able to show as to in what manner the petitioners are being harassed by the police. Neither any particular incident nor any specific allegation has been referred to. It has only been stated in para 7 of the petition that certain false complaints were made to the Senior Superintendent of Police, Tarn Taran, alleging that petitioners have taken Rs.11.00 lacs from respondent No.4 for sending his brother to a foreign country. However, admittedly no FIR has been registered by the police pursuant to complaint, if any. In my considered view, the petition is totally frivolous. It does not show any cause of action for invoking the inherent jurisdiction of this court. I, thus, find no merit in the petition. Dismissed. (RAJAN GUPTA) JUDGE September 18, 2009 'rajpal'