IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Crl. M. No.2912-M of 2011 Date of Decision:29.3.2011 Lakhbir Kaur .... Petitioner Versus State of Punjab and others .... Respondents CORAM: Hon'ble Ms. Justice Nirmaljit Kaur Present: Mr. Ranjit Sharma, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. K.S. Pannu, D.A.G. Punjab. Ms. G.K. Mann, Advocate for the private respondents. **** 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) This is a petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for issuance of directions to respondents No.3 and 4 not to interfere in the peaceful life and liberty of the petitioner by calling her in the Police Station. Upon notice, reply by way of affidavit of Jatinder Singh Mand PPS Deputy Superintendent of Police, Sub Division Goindwal Sahib, District Tarn Taran on behalf of respondents No.1 to 4 has been filed. It is submitted in para 1 of the preliminary submission as under: “ That there was land dispute between the petitioner and respondents No.5 to 9. The petitioner had submitted complaint to the Addl. Director General of Police-cum Human Rights, Punjab, Chandigarh vide No.214/IVC dated 10.12.2010 and complaint No.2436/PP dated 13.10.2010 addressed to SSP-Tarn Taran. As a matter of both the complaints was same which were enquired into by Superintendent of Police, Headquarers. Tarn Taran and concluded that matter relate to revenue and possibility of major quarrel between both the parties cannot be ruled out. Hence, directed SHO Police Station Sadar, Tarn Taran to initiate preventive action against both the parties. Crl. M. No.2912-M of 2011 -2- In compliance of the directions, ASI Gurinderbir Singh of Police Station, Sadar, Tarn Taran was directed through respondent No.3 to got initiated preventive proceeding against both the parties. Consequently proceedings under Section 7/15/150 Cr.P.C. has been initiated against both the parties.” In view of the above, the apprehension of the petitioner is reasonably addressed and necessary measures have been taken. Accordingly, the present petition is disposed of as having been rendered infructuous. 29.3.2011 ( NIRMALJIT KAUR ) rajeev JUDGE