Crl. Misc. No. M-12587 of 2011 (O&M) (1) IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Crl. Misc. No. M-12587 of 2011 (O&M) DATE OF DECISION: 27.04.2011 Prem Chand ..........Petitioner Versus State of Punjab and others ..........Respondents BEFORE:- HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE DAYA CHAUDHARY Present:- Mr. Vijay Pal, Advocate for the petitioner. **** DAYA CHAUDHARY, J. Crl. Misc. No. 22787 of 2011 Application is allowed as prayed for. Crl. Misc. No. M-12587 of 2011 The present petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed on behalf of Prem Chand for issuing directions to respondents No.1 to 7 to take action against respondents No.8 and 9, as he is facing danger at the instance of respondents No. 8 and 9. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that respondents No. 8 and 9 demanded money from the petitioner, whereas, the petitioner has not taken any amount from them. Learned counsel for the petitioner also submits that respondents No.8 and 9 are gangsters and they are harassing the petitioner without any reason. They have stated that if the petitioner wants to run his business peacefully, an amount of ` two lacs has to be paid. Learned counsel also submits that a legal notice was also served upon the petitioner through an Advocate, which is annexed as Crl. Misc. No. M-12587 of 2011 (O&M) (2) Annexure P-6. Heard the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the petitioner and have also gone through the documents available on record. Learned counsel for the petitioner has tried to make out a case only on the basis that an amount of ` 2,00,000/- was demanded by respondents No. 8 and 9. He has also brought to the notice of this Court, that a legal notice was given to the petitioner on 23.2.2011. Admittedly, no reply to the said legal notice has been given by the petitioner and by simply stating that an amount of ` 2,00,000/- was demanded by respondents No. 8 and 9 does not make out a case for issuance of directions. There is nothing on record to show as to why and how the money was demanded. Only by stating that respondents No. 8 and 9 called the petitioner and demanded an amount of ` 2,00,000/- does not prove the allegations against them. The best course for the petitioner is to give reply to the legal notice. No ground is made out for issuing any directions. The petition being devoid of any merit is hereby dismissed. April 27, 2011 (DAYA CHAUDHARY) pooja JUDGE