CRM No. M 20818 of 2010 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH -- CRM No. M 20818 of 2010 Date of decision: 22.07.2010 Mohinder Pal ........ Petitioner Versus State of Punjab and others .......Respondent(s) Coram: Hon'ble Ms Justice Nirmaljit Kaur -.- Present: Mr. Manmeet Singh Rana, Advocate for the petitioner -.- 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgement? 2. To be referred to the Reporter or not? 3. Whether the judgement should be reported in the Digest? Nirmaljit Kaur, J. (Oral) This is a petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for issuance of directions to respondent Nos. 2 and 3 to protect the life and liberty of the petitioner and his family members which is under imminent threat at the hands of respondents No. 4 to 10. It is also prayed that respondent No. 2 be directed either to conduct a fair and impartial inquiry into the matter personally or get the same done from some higher police official. It is contended by the learned counsel as also stated in the petition that since the petitioner got an order of status quo, respondents No. 4 to 7 managed to add Section 326 IPC in the FIR No. 36 dated 11.04.2010 under Section 323, 324, 506, 148, 149 of Indian Penal Code later on added offence under Section 326 IPC vide rapat/DD No. 32 dated 19.04.2010, P S CRM No. M 20818 of 2010 2 Goraya, District Jalandhar just with a view to pressurise the petitioner and his family members to compromise the matter and hand over the possession of the house in question. It is further stated that respondent Nos. 4 to 7 tried to dispossess the petitioner and family members from the house in question forcibly on 20.04.2010 but could not succeed. It is apparent from the above that more than the threat perceptions, the petitioner is aggrieved that an FIR has been registered against him. In case, the petitioner is aggrieved on account of any illegal attempt by the respondents, the petitioner is always at liberty to file criminal complaint or avail of any other remedy as available in law. The petitioner has not taken recourse of any of the remedy as above. The State is required to protect the life and liberty of every citizen under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. No specific direction for the same is required to be passed in the facts of the present case. Dismissed. (Nirmaljit Kaur) Judge 22.07.2010 mohan