IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Crl. Misc. No. M-37520 of 2010 (O&M) Date of decision:- 27.04.2011 Mandeep Kaur ...Petitioner Versus State of Punjab and others ...Respondents. CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE RITU BAHRI Present:- Mr. B.S. Bhalla, , Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Guninder S. Brar, AAG, Punjab RITU BAHRI J.(Oral) The petitioner has sought direction from respondent No. 2 to protect the life and liberty of the petitioner and her daughters from respondent No. 4 and further direction to respondent No. 3 not to pressurize the petitioner to withdraw the complaint (Annexure P1) made by the petitioner to respondent No. 2. and further not to pressurize to compromise the matter and further to take action on the representation made by the petitioner. On notice, a reply has been filed by way of affidavit on behalf of respondent Nos. 1 to 3. As per reply, it has been stated that no application/representation has been received on taking action against respondent No. 4. It has further been stated that the petitioner never approach respondent No. 3 on 17.11.2010 and the allegations levelled against respondent No. 3 by the petitioner in petition are vague and indefinite. Respondent No. 3 has further stated that there is no danger to life and liberty of the petitioner and her daughter from respondent No. 4. In view of the reply filed by respondent No. 3, the petition is disposed with a direction that if petitioner makes any representation to respondent No. 3, he will look into it, in accordance with law. April 27, 2011 ( RITU BAHRI ) G.Arora JUDGE