Crl. Misc. No. M-12109 of 2011 (O&M) (1) IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Crl. Misc. No. M-12109 of 2011 (O&M) DATE OF DECISION: 25.04.2011 Ruchi Nayyar and another ..........Petitioners Versus State of Punjab and others ..........Respondents BEFORE:- HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE DAYA CHAUDHARY Present:- Mr. Sanjay K. Guevera, Advocate for the petitioners. **** DAYA CHAUDHARY, J. Crl. Misc. No. 21928 of 2011 Application is allowed as prayed for. Crl. Misc. No. M-12109 of 2011 The present petition under Section 482 has been filed for issuing directions to official respondents to protect the life, liberty and property of the petitioners and their family members. Learned counsel for the petitioners contends that petitioner No.1 and her minor son (petitioner No.2) are being threatened at the instance of respondent No.4 and respondent No.4 is forcing petitioner No.1 to sign certain documents. Learned counsel further contends that earlier respondent No.4 has forcibly taken the custody of petitioner No.2, who is only 13 months old child, but the same was handed over to petitioner No.1 only on the condition that custody of the child would be given to her if she will sign the papers for divorce by mutual consent. Learned counsel also contends that although a complaint in this regard has been made to SHO, Crl. Misc. No. M-12109 of 2011 (O&M) (2) Police Station Kharar (Mohali) on 14.4.2011 and subsequently on 18.4.2011 but no action has been taken so far. Heard the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the petitioners and have also gone through the complaints, which are on record. As far as allegations of petitioner No.1 as well as complaints filed by her are concerned, all allegations are vague and not specific. A very vast prayer has been made in the petition to protect the life and liberty of the petitioners as well as their family members, other relatives and friends. Although the counsel for the petitioner has restricted his prayer to protect the life of the petitioners at this stage but no such representation has been made to the police authorities, which is on record. Unless a complaint/representation is there with the police authorities, no direction can be issued. However, the petitioners are at liberty to make any specific representation with regard to threat. In case any such representation is made within a period of two weeks from today, respondent No.3-S.H.O., Police Station Kharar is directed to look into the allegations and take necessary action in accordance with law. Disposed of accordingly. April 25, 2011 (DAYA CHAUDHARY) pooja JUDGE