CRM No. M 2054 of 2011 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH -- CRM No. M 2054 of 2011 Date of decision: 15.02.2011 Pooja Rani and another ........ Petitioners Versus State of Haryana and others .......Respondent(s) Coram: Hon'ble Ms Justice Nirmaljit Kaur -.- Present: Mr. Jagpal Singh, Advocate for the petitioners Mr. Sidrath Sarup, DAG, Haryana for the respondent - State -.- 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. To be referred to the Reporter 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. 2 and 3 to protect the lives and liberty of the petitioners at the hands of respondent No. 4 to 7. On 21.01.2011, respondent No. 5 Murti Devi wife of Prem Chand, who is the mother of petitioner No. 1 had appeared and stated that petitioners No. 1 and 2 are related to each other and cannot get married. It was further stated that FIR No. 237 dated 22.08.2010 under Section 406/34 IPC has been registered against petitioner No. 2. On her request, time was granted to Murti Devi-respondent No. 5 to engage her counsel. Today, neither Respondent No. 5 herself present in the Court nor is represented through any counsel. Written reply of Mahender Singh Nehra, DSP, Pehowa, District CRM No. M 2054 of 2011 2 Kurukshetra on behalf of respondents No. 1 to 3 has been filed. The same is taken on record. Para 2 of the preliminary submissions of the said reply reads as under:- “2. That the parents or any other member of family of petitioner No. 1 didn't get registered any case with the answering respondents regarding her kidnapping against petitioner No. 2. However, it is pertinent to mention here that this Hon'ble High Court was pleased to direct the answering respondent vide order dated 21.01.2011 not to arrest the petitioner No. 2 in case FIR No. 237 dated 22.08.2010 under Section 406/34 IPC. It is humbly submitted that in the aforesaid case FIR No. 237, which is not related to the facts of the present petition, petitioners No. 2 had already been arrested. More so, in that case, the challan had also been presented before the ld. Trial Court for trial on 24.09.2010.” In view of the reply filed by respondents No. 1 to 3, the present petition is disposed of with a direction that in case, the petitioners still apprehend threat at the hands of the private respondents, they are at liberty to approach the Superintendent of Police, Kurukshetra and submit their representation and the Superintendent of Police, Kurukshetra, thereafter shall look into the same and take appropriate measures, if so required, in accordance with law. Disposed of in the above terms. (Nirmaljit Kaur) Judge 15.02.2011 mohan