Petitioner sought mandamus to prevent harassment by respondent. Court found no evidence of harassment and directed petitioner to move appropriate application before respondent No.2. Petition disposed without decree.
None granted; directed petitioner to move appropriate application before respondent No.2.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
Court No. - 36
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 15299 of 2018
Petitioner :- Ujjawal Sharma Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Yadvesh Yadav Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.
Hon'ble Mrs. Sunita Agarwal,J. Hon'ble Ajit Kumar,J.
The petitioner seeks a direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondent No.3 not to harass him pursuant to the Non-cognizable Report dated 09.05.2018 registered under Section 498 IPC at Police Station Nai Mandi, District Muzaffar Nagar.
Apart from the bald statement made in the writ petition, nothing has been brought on record to substantiate as to in what manner the petitioner is being harassed at the ends of respondent No.3.
However, for the grievance raised by the petitioner herein, it would be appropriate that he may move an appropriate application before the respondent No.2, who may do the needful in accordance with law.
Disposed of.
Order Date :- 15.6.2018 NSC
(Sunita Agarwal, J.)
(Ajit Kumar, J.)
Ujjawal Sharma
State Of U.P.
3 Others
Sunita Agarwal
Ajit Kumar
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
