Crl. Misc. No. M-36695 of 2010 [1] IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Crl. Misc. No. M-36695 of 2010 Date of Decision: December 16, 2010 Subeg Singh …..Petitioner Vs. State of Haryana and others …..Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE M.M.S. BEDI. -.- Present:- Mr.Navkiran Singh, Advocate for the petitioner. -.- M.M.S. BEDI, J. (ORAL) The petitioner is an accused in two criminal cases. He had on earlier occasion submitted a representation to S.P., Karnal, alleging that he had been falsely involved in the case and that the matter required to be enquired by senior officer. It is claimed that he had filed a Crl. Misc. No. M-12769 of 2010 Subej Singh Vs. State of Haryana before this Court in which without going into the merits of the claim raised by the petitioner, a Crl. Misc. No. M-36695 of 2010 [2] direction was issued to respondent No.2 i.e. S.P., Karnal, to consider the application of the petitioner dated April 12, 2010. Counsel for the petitioner has filed the present petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. on the ground that despite there being a direction vide order dated May 4, 2010, S.P., Karnal did not make any attempt to consider the innocence of the petitioner by getting the matter fairly investigated. A direction has again been sought to S.P., Karnal, to take appropriate action on the application dated April 12, 2010. Heard. In FIRs dated February 14, 2010 and March 26, 2010, the challan had been presented prior to May 4, 2010 and on May 11, 2010. Grievance of the counsel for the petitioner is that despite there being a specific direction to enquire into the matter regarding the innocence of the petitioner, the challan has been presented, therefore, a direction should be given to re-investigate the matter. It is claimed that the complainant has got no authority to grab the land which vests in proprietors of the village. After hearing counsel for the petitioner and going through the order dated May 4, 2010, I am of the opinion that when the order dated May 4, 2010 was passed, the challan had been presented in one FIR and in the another, the challan was presented within seven days after the order passed by the High Court. The order passed by the High Court appears to have not been communicated by the date, the challan was presented. At this stage, in view of above detailed circumstances, no ground is made out for issuing any Crl. Misc. No. M-36695 of 2010 [3] direction for compliance of the earlier order. However, it is observed that all the pleas taken up in this petition can either be raised in defence or in any other manner in accordance with law. Dismissed. In case there is any material available with the petitioner patently falsifying the allegations in the criminal cases against him, he can make a request to the investigating agency for further investigation by adopting the procedure of law with necessary permission of the Court where the challan has been presented. December 16, 2010 (M.M.S.BEDI) sanjay JUDGE