IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.O.C.P. No.2082 of 2008 Date of Decision : March 05, 2009 Gurdeep Singh ....Petitioner Versus Danesh Partap Singh .....Respondent CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T.P.S. MANN Present : Mr. P.P.S. Duggall, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. M.C. Berry, Additional Advocate General, Punjab for the respondent. T.P.S. MANN, J. (Oral) On April 22, 2008, while disposing of Crl. Misc. No. M-9851 of 2008, it was directed by this Court that the respondent shall look into the matter and decide the representation attached as Annexure P.1 therein in accordance with law by passing a detailed speaking order within a period of 45 days from the date of receipt of a certified copy of the order. Reply has been filed on behalf of the respondent today in the Court and a copy thereof has been supplied to learned counsel for the petitioner. A perusal of the reply filed on behalf of respondent would reveal that the respondent got an enquiry conducted into the allegations levelled by the petitioner from Deputy Superintendent of Police (Sub Division), Ferozepur, who after conducting an open and secret enquiry C.O.C.P. No.2082 of 2008 -2- found that the petitioner was moving complaints by levelling false allegations in order to put pressure on the recovery agents of Bank to restrain them from enquiring the petitioner about the installments of the Bank loan. On receipt of the said enquiry, a speaking order was passed by the respondent on 14.6.2008. Copy of the said order has been attached with the reply as Annexure R.1. In the last para of the order Annexure R.1, it has been mentioned that Ranjit Singh, grandson of the petitioner, was not forcibly made to sit in the car by any Bank official. Snatching of gold chain or cash amounting to Rs. 20,000/- from Ranjit Singh by the Bank officials was not found established during the enquiry. In fact, the petition has been filed by the petitioner in order to put pressure on the recovery agents of the Bank so that they might not enquire from him about the installments of Bank loan. In view of the fact that the representation earlier submitted by the petitioner has been considered and disposed of by the respondent by passing an order on 14.6.2008, the present petition is without any merit and, therefore, dismissed. Rule is discharged. ( T.P.S. MANN ) March 05, 2009 JUDGE satish