Crl. Misc. No.M-8050 of 2010 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Crl. Misc. No.M-8050 of 2010 Date of Decision: 05.05.2011 Ranjit Kaur and another ....Petitioner Versus State of Punjab and others ...Respondents CORAM : Hon'ble Ms. Justice Nirmaljit Kaur Present:- Mr. Amit Verma, Advocate for Mr. N.S. Sodhi, Advocate for the petitioners. Ms. Gurveen H. Singh, Addl. A.G., Punjab for the respondent-State. ***** 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 438 Cr.P.C for issuance of direction to respondents No.1 to 5 to ensure the life and liberty of the petitioners and to protect them from harassing by calling them in different police stations time and again in order to put pressure to compromise the property matter with respondents No.6 to 9 when the civil litigation is pending and there is no FIR or any case nor any offence has been committed by the petitioners. Reply on behalf of respondents No.1 to 5 has been filed. As per the reply, a civil suit between the petitioners and private respondents is already pending in the Court of Civil Judge, Moga. It is further submitted that respondents No.6 to 11 had moved applications against each other to Crl. Misc. No.M-8050 of 2010 2 various police stations. Out of those applications, one of the application was enquired by respondent No.4 which was moved by respondent No.11 against the petitioner. During enquiry, it transpired that the matter was also pending in the Court of Civil Judge, Moga. Accordingly, the said application was ordered to be consigned to the record room. The application moved by respondent No.6 against the petitioner was enquired by respondent No.5. During the enquiry of the said application, the matter was compromised between the parties. The said application, too, was ordered to be consigned to the record room. Thereafter, another application was moved by respondent No.6 against the petitioner. Respondent no.6 had also filed Writ Petition before this Court bearing No.M-9604 of 2010, in which, this Court had directed the respondent No.2 to decide the representation of the petitioner within three weeks. On the basis of said application, an FIR No.30 dated 22.04.2010 under Sections 452/506 IPC was registered against petitioner No.2 at Police Station Mehna. Ms. Gurveen H. Singh, Additional Advocate General, Punjab, on instructions from Head Constable Gurtej Singh, states that the FIR was investigated and the cancellation report has been prepared which is pending before the Senior Superintendent of Police concerned for approval. In view of the same, no further order is required to be passed and it is evident that the allegations against the petitioners are mere apprehension. Dismissed accordingly. (NIRMALJIT KAUR) 05.05.2011 JUDGE gurpreet