IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA Cr.M.M.O.No.171 of 2010. Date of decision: 21.9.2010. Anjali Malhotra … …Petitioner Versus State of H.P. & Others … …Respondents Coram The Hon’ble Mr.Justice Dev Darshan Sud,J. Whether approved for reporting ?1 No. For the Petitioner: Mr.Suresh Acharya, Advocate. For Respondent No.1: Mr.P.K. Sharma, Additional Advocate General with Ms.Shubh Mahajan, Deputy Advocate General. For Respondents 3 & 4: Mr.J.L. Bhardwaj, Advocate. Dev Darshan Sud,J. The petitioner has made a number of complaints including one of indecent assault. She says that she has been victimized because of the fact that she is a public activist and that the authorities are not treating her well. Notices of this petition were issued to the State and record called for. It has been submitted by learned Additional Advocate General that the complaints which she made have been recorded by the police, but when the police went for investigation, they found that the petitioner is not available for rendering any assistance to the police. 1 Whether the reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgement? Yes. 2 2. In these circumstances, this petition is disposed of. A direction is issued to the respondents to investigate the complaints made or cases instituted by the petitioner against various persons/authorities. This direction does not mean that the petitioner will not cooperate with the Investigating Agency. She will have to render all aid and assistance in accordance with law. In case she does not do so, the results would be obvious that she has nothing to state in the matter. This petition is disposed of. No order as to costs. September 21, 2010. (Dev Darshan Sud) (aks) Judge.