Daya Chaudhary, J.
Crl. Misc. No. 21126 of 2011
1. This is an application for placing on record Annexure P-4.
2. Application is allowed and Annexure P-4 is taken on record.
Crl. Misc. No. 17758 of 2011
3. Application is allowed as prayed for.
Crl. Misc. No. M-9695 of 2011
4. The present petition u/s 482 Code of Criminal Procedure has been filed on behalf of Sahab Singh for issuing directions to Respondents to Respondents No. 1 to 3 to protect the life and liberty of the Petitioner and his family members from the hands of private Respondents.
5. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner contends that earlier also the Petitioner was provided security but subsequently the same was withdrawn and now the Petitioner and his family members are facing serious threat at the instance of private Respondents.
6. Heard the arguments advanced by learned Counsel for the Petitioner and have also gone through the documents available on the file.
7. Admittedly, earlier also, the Petitioner has approached this Court by way of Crl. Misc. No. M-23959 of 2010 and the same was disposed of vide order dated 23.9.2010 with a direction to the Petitioner to make a representation to the authorities concerned and in case of any representation is made, Inspector General, Ambala Range, Ambala was directed to decide the same within a period of one week thereafter by passing a speaking order. Even prior to that also, the Petitioner filed Crl. Misc. No. M-7528 of 2010 before this Court, which was dismissed as infructuous vide order dated 12.3.2010. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner has not been able to pin point with regard to any representation filed by the Petitioner after passing of order dated 23.9.2010 by this Court. Only after filing this petition, the Petitioner has stated to have filed representation on 12.4.2011, which has now been placed on record with Crl. Misc. No. 21127 of 2011. Without waiting for the decision on the representation dated 12.4.2011, the present petition has been filed. No specific date has been mentioned in the petition that after passing of order dated 23.9.2010 any threat has been given to the Petitioner.
8. In view of the above and the fact that the counsel for the Petitioner has not been able to make out any case on the basis of allegations in the petition as well as the fact that directions have already been issued, no further direction can be issued. The petition being devoid of any merit is dismissed.
9. Since the Petitioner has already made a representation on 12.4.2010, he is at liberty to make another representation by making specific allegations with regard to any serious threat. In case any such representation is made, the same shall be decided by the concerned authority.
