Crl. Misc. No.M-3277 of 2011 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Crl. Misc. No.M-3277 of 2011 Date of Decision: 02.02.2011 Raju Singh ....Petitioner Versus State of Haryana and others ...Respondent CORAM : Hon'ble Ms. Justice Nirmaljit Kaur Present:- Mr. Sandeep Kotla, Advocate for the petitioner. ***** 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. (ORAL) This is a petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C for quashing of order dated 29.09.2010 passed by the Sessions Judge, Karnal in P.P. No.44 dated 29.09.2010. The operative part of the said order reads as under :- “ In view of the above mentioned facts and circumstances and keeping in view the directions of Hon'ble Court, it is a fit case where petitioners require police protection. As such, notice of this petition be given to respondents returnable for 19.10.2010 directing them to appear before this court on the date fixed and to show cause as to why the petition should not be allowed as per prayer of the petitioners. In the meanwhile, respondent No.2 Superintendent of Police, Karnal is directed to provide adequate security to protect the lives and liberty of the petitioners and to see that respondents No.4 to 8 or any other person should not or could not harass and cause any problem to the petitioners. The parties are also Crl. Misc. No.M-3277 of 2011 2 directed to appear in person on this date fixed.” The only ground raised in the present petition is that the said order was obtained by misrepresenting the facts. A perusal of the said orders shows that the only direction given by the Sessions Judge, Karnal vide order dated 29.09.2010 was to grant protection to the life and liberty of the petitioners. Meaning thereby, that the present petitioner should not be physically harmed in any manner. The said order is not an observation on the validity or the status of the marriage, if any, between the petitioners. As such, there is no ground to recall the said order. It also does not come in the way of initiation of any civil or criminal proceedings if made out against them. Disposed of accordingly. (NIRMALJIT KAUR) 02.02.2011 JUDGE gurpreet