IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. CRIMINAL MISC.No. 25278-M of 2009 DATE OF DECISION : JANUARY 11, 2010 SATNAM SINGH ....... PETITIONER(S) VERSUS STATE OF PUNJAB & ORS. .... RESPONDENT(S) CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAI LAMBA PRESENT: None for the petitioner(s). Ms. Rajni Gupta, Addl.AG, Punjab. AJAI LAMBA, J. (Oral) This petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, has been filed praying for a direction to respondents No.1 to 3 to protect the rule of law and further to restrain respondents No.4 and 5 from forcibly recovering the vehicle i.e. truck bearing registration No.PB- 02-AN-9862, with the help of anti social recovery agents. In the petition, it has been pleaded that the petitioner purchased the vehicle after obtaining a loan to the tune of Rs.4,50,000/-. Considerable amount on that account was repaid, however, on account of recession, some installments could not be paid in time. It has further been pleaded that the petitioner is going through financial hardship. On account of non-payment of loan installments, the respondent-company wants to CRIMINAL MISC.No. 25278-M of 2009 2 recover the vehicle by way of illegal means. Order dated 9.9.2009 notices that the petitioner is ready to deposit two installments i.e. Rs.30,000/-, within a period of 15 days and the rest of the amount shall be deposited in due course. On such undertaking having been given by the petitioner, recovery of the vehicle from the petitioner through forcible means was stayed. Order dated 5.11.2009 further notices that learned counsel for the petitioner gave a statement in court that the amount of Rs.30,000/- had already been deposited. The photostat copies of the drafts were required to be placed on record which, however, has not been done. None has put in appearance on behalf of the petitioner. Be that as it may, considering the nature of the prayer, this petition is disposed of with directions to respondent No.3 i.e. Senior Superintendent of Police, Amritsar, to take notice of the facts and ensure that respondents No.4 and 5 do not take the law into their own hands. January 11, 2010 ( AJAI LAMBA ) Kang JUDGE 1. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 2. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?