High Court of Punjab and HaryanaCRM-M/45362/2016dismissed

Rajpal Sehgal & ANR v. State Of Punjab & ORS

2017-03-01Mr. Justice Harinder Singh Sidhu2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT

CHANDIGARH CRM No.M-45362 of 2016 (O&M) Date of Decision: March 01, 2017 Rajpal Sehgal and another

...Petitioners

VERSUS

State of Punjab and others

...Respondents

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE INDERJIT SINGH

Present:

Mr.Umesh Aggarwal, Advocate for the petitioners.

Mr.K.S.Aulakh, Asstt. Advocate General, Punjab for the respondent-State.

Mr.Vivek Salathia, Advocate for respondent No.4.

**** INDERJIT SINGH, J.

Petitioners have filed this petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for issuance of directions to respondents No.1 to 3 to protect the life and liberty of the petitioners and to restrain respondent No.4 from entering into the house of the petitioners etc.

Notice of motion was issued. Learned State counsel as well as learned counsel for respondent No.4 appeared and contested the petition. I have heard learned counsel for the parties as well as learned State counsel and have gone through the record. From the record, I find that earlier, the petitioner filed the Vineet Gulati 2017.03.02 15:55 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Chandigarh petition for protecting life and liberty etc., which was withdrawn by the

CRM No.M-45362 of 2016 -2petitioners on 05.08.2016 with liberty to avail alternate remedies available as per law. The petitioners, now again have filed the petition, asking for the same relief. The second petition is not maintainable, when once the first petition has been withdrawn with liberty to avail alternative remedies. No ground has been given as to why this second petition has been filed after withdrawing the first petition.

Learned counsel for the petitioners argued that the present petition has been filed as another representation has been moved by the petitioners to the Police Commissioner, Amritsar. I have gone through the representation also. From the perusal of the representation, no threat to the life and liberty of the petitioners is made out. Respondent No.4 is the daughter-in-law of the petitioners and it looks that there is matrimonial dispute between the parties.

In view of the above discussion, I do not find any merit in the present petition and the same is dismissed.

March 01, 2017 (INDERJIT SINGH) Vgulati JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned Yes Whether reportable No Vineet Gulati 2017.03.02 15:55 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Chandigarh