IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Crl.W.P No.828 of 2008 Date of Decision:12.1.2010 Raj Kumar .... Petitioner Versus State of Haryana and others .... Respondents CORAM: Hon'ble Ms. Justice Nirmaljit Kaur Present: Mr. J.S. Hooda, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Pardeep Virk, D.A.G. Haryana. Mr. Vijay Pal Singh, Advocate for respondents No.5 to 9. Mr. Anil Ghangas, Advocate for the contemners. **** 1.Whether Reporters of Local Newspapers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2.To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3.Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? NIRMALJIT KAUR, J. The present writ petition has been filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India for issuance of a writ in the nature of Habeas Corpus directing the respondents to produce Miss. Rinki (alleged detenue) minor daughter of the petitioner before the Court. The said writ petition was rendered infructuous and dismissed as such. However, in view of the conduct of the police officers namely Inspector Balwant Singh and SI Om Parkash in the premises of the Court, notices were issued against them as to why the contempt proceedings be not initiated against them and on 6.11.2009, S.P. Palwal, who was present in the Court was required to see as to what further appropriate action/proceedings be taken against them. Subsequently, reply was filed by the Inspector Balwant Singh and SI Om Parkash rendering their unqualified apology. Reply has also been filed by Sanjay Kumar IPS Superintendent of Police, Palwal by way of an affidavit dated 16.5.2009 wherein it is stated that punishment of “censure” was Crl.W.P No.828 of 2008 -2- awarded to Inspector Balwant Singh and punishment of stoppage of two annual increments with temporary effect was imposed on SI Om Parkash vide orders Annexure R-2 and R-3 respectively. In view of the reply in the form of affidavit of S.P. Palwal, no further action is required. Accordingly, the instant writ petition stands dismissed as infructuous. However, this Court vide its order dated 30.9.2008 had stayed the further proceedings in FIR No.243 dated 20.7.2008 till further orders. Accordingly, matter regarding vacation of stay of further proceedings in FIR No.243 dated 20.7.2008 shall be decided in the quashing petition i.e. Crl. Misc. No. M-32954 of 2008 which was all along being heard along with this case. 12.1.2010 ( NIRMALJIT KAUR ) rajeev JUDGE