IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA, CHANDIGARH Criminal Miscellaneous No. M-28571 of 2011 (O & M) Date of Decision: September 19, 2011 Satyawan & another .....PETITIONER(S) VERSUS State of Haryana & others .....RESPONDENT(S) . . . CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAI LAMBA PRESENT: - Mr. Ashok Kumar Sehrawat, Advocate, for the petitioners. . . . AJAI LAMBA, J (Oral) 1. It has been pleaded that the petitioners got married against the wishes of respondent Nos.4 to 9 who are the family members of petitioner No.1, Satyawan. 2. I find that the petitioners were married in the year 2007. So much so, petitioner No.2 filed a petition under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, for restitution of conjugal rights which shows that there were differences between the petitioners. It appears that the petition ended in a compromise. Be that as it may, no reason for apprehension of threat has been shown to the Court. Crl. Misc. No. M-28571 of 2011 [2] 3. On a query of the Court, it has been brought out that the land is joint and petitioner No.1 wants to take possession of the land. 4. Learned counsel, at this stage, wants to withdraw the petition. 5. Dismissed as withdrawn on the statement of learned counsel for the petitioners. (AJAI LAMBA) September 19, 2011 JUDGE avin 1. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 2. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?