IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP No. 19037 of 2009 Date of Decision: 21.01.2011 Harkirat Singh etc. ...Petitioners Versus Human Right Commission, Punjab and others, ..Respondents. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RANJAN GOGOI, ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ADARSH KUMAR GOEL 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment ? 2. Whether to be referred to the Reporters or not ? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? Present : Mr. Karan Bhardwaj, Advocate for Mr. Anupam Gupta, Advocate (Amicus Curiae). Mr. O.S.Batalvi, Advocate, for the petitioners. Ms. Madhu Dayal, Addl. Advocate General, Punjab Mr. Anil Rathee, Addl. A.G. Haryana **** RANJAN GOGOI, A.C.J.(Oral) The challenge in the present writ petition is against an order dated 19.8.2009 (Annexure P-4) passed by the Punjab Human Rights Commission recommending following action against the petitioners:- “i) A departmental action be initiated against Sub Inspector Sarwan Singh, Head Constable Sukhwinder Singh, and ASI Harkitar Singh; and ii) compensation of Rs. 75,000/- be given to the complainant and Smt. Inderjit Kaur, which shall be shared equally by them. CWP No. 19037 of 2009 [2] The State Government may recover the said amount of compensation from the salary of the delinquent officials. The action taken report be submitted to the Commission within a period of two months from the receipt of the copy of this order.” 2. Learned counsel for the petitioners had made a statement before the Court that in the present case, he would only be challenging the legality of the amount of compensation awarded by the learned Commission and not any other issue. The said submission has already been recorded in the Court order dated 15.01.2010.We have noticed that by order dated 12.10.2010, the Bench had reduced the compensation amount to Rs. 25,000/- and had kept the matter on Board only for the purpose of consideration as to whether guidelines regulating power under Section 109 of the Code of Criminal Procedure would be called for. The above is the limited aspect of the case which survives for consideration of this Court. 3. Having perused the provisions of Section 109 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and having noticed the self contained provisions therein as well as the decision of the Apex Court reported as Madhu Limaye and another V. Ved Murti and others AIR 1971 Supreme Court 2481, we are of the view that there would be no necessity of laying down any guidelines inasmuch as exercise of the power under Section 109 of the Code of Criminal Procedure stands regulated by the provisions contained therein as well as the decision of the Apex Court in Madhu Limaye's case (supra). Consequently, writ petition stands disposed of in the above terms. (RANJAN GOGOI) ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE (ADARSH KUMAR GOEL) 21.01.2011 JUDGE 'ravinder'