Crl. Misc. No. M-26786 of 2009 (O&M) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Case No. : Crl. Misc. No. M-26786 of 2009 (O&M) Date of Decision : July 11, 2011 Ratta Singh and others .... Petitioners Vs. State of Punjab and others .... Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE L. N. MITTAL * * * Present : Mr. P. K. Dwivedi, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. Shailesh Gupta, DAG, Punjab for respondents no.1 to 4. Mr. Mandeep Singh Bedi, Senior Advocate with Mr. Anil K. Joshi, Advocate for respondents no.5 and 6. Mr. A. P. S. Deol, Senior Advocate with Mr. Ramandeep Singh, Advocate for respondent no. 7. * * * L. N. MITTAL, J. (Oral) : Ratta Singh and others have filed this petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for taking action against respondents no.5 to 7 for harassing the petitioners and their family members and for falsely implicating them in false cases in connivance with respondent no.4 (Assistant Superintendent of Police). The petitioners have also sought Crl. Misc. No. M-26786 of 2009 (O&M) 2 direction against implication of the petitioners and their family members in false cases. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case file. Learned counsel for the petitioners vehemently contended that three police cases have been lodged against the petitioners and/or their family members. However, admittedly, the trouble started with lodging of FIR against Piara Singh son of petitioner no.1 Ratta Singh on 25.05.2009 under Section 328 of the Indian Penal Code for allegedly administering poison to respondent no.6 Jagdish Singh @ Jagdish Chand. However, since poison was not detected in the vomit of respondent no.6, cancellation report had been submitted in that case. Out of the remaining two cases, in one case, challan has been presented and even charge has been framed. Petition for quashing of said FIR, filed by accused persons of that case, was dismissed as withdrawn, by this Court. However, learned counsel for the petitioners states that another petition for quashing the said FIR along with charge-sheet has been filed and is still pending. Similarly, petition for quashing the third FIR is also pending in this Court. In view of the aforesaid factual position, no further order or direction is required in the instant petition. The same is disposed of. July 11, 2011 ( L. N. MITTAL ) monika JUDGE