Disposed

Satyavati Yadav v. the State Govt of NCT of Delhi

Delhi HC16 May 2018W.P.(CRL)/198/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court disposed of a writ petition filed by a senior citizen for protection of her life and property. Noting that prior protection was granted and accepted, the Court ordered continued protection as per rules and disposed of a pending application.

What did the court decide?

Necessary protection to be continued to be provided to the petitioner at the given address as per rules.

Satyavati Yadav Vs the State Govt of NCT… — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Delhi HC (2018)

¶1

$~11 *** IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI**

¶2

DECIDED ON : 16^th MAY, 2018

¶3

- W.P.(CRL) 198/2018 & CRL.M.A.No.1128/2018 SATYAVATI YADAV ..... Petitioner Through : Mr.Anil Dwedi, Advocate.

¶4

versus

¶5

THE STATE GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI ..... Respondent Through : Mr.Jamal Akhtar, proxy counsel for Mr.Rahul Mehra, Standing Counsel with SI Dharmendra Pratap Singh, PS S.P. Badli.

¶6

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.P.GARG

¶7

S.P.GARG, J. (Oral)

¶8

Present writ petition has been preferred by the petitioner – Satyavati Yadav aged around 85 years under Article 226 of the Constitution of India read with Section 482 Cr.P.C. seeking protection to her life and property.

¶9

I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have examined the file. By an order dated 19.01.2018, necessary protection was granted to the petitioner as per rules. It is informed that the protection has since been granted to the petitioner.

¶10

Notice of the petition was given to the respondents No.3

¶11

& 4. They did not opt to appear despite service on 12.03.2018. Same

¶12

W.P. (Crl.) 198/2018 Page 1 of 2

¶13

is the position today. It appears that the respondents No.3 & 4 are not interested to contest the petition.

¶14

The petitioner is a senior citizen aged around 85 years. The respondents No.3 & 4 are her relatives residing in the same building on the second floor. The petitioner claims that the property in question where she is residing belongs to her. Respondents No.3 & 4 have not been produced on record any document to show ownership of the said flat in their favour. Status report reveals that FIR No.1101/2017 under Sections 448/511/34 IPC has been registered at PS Samaipur Badli on the petitioner’s complaint against respondents No.3 & 4 and the investigation is being carried out. It further reveals that the petitioner has also filed Civil Suit No.216/2017 against respondents No.3 & 4.

¶15

The writ petition stands disposed of with the directions that the necessary protection shall continue to be provided to the petitioner at the given address, as per rules.

¶16

Pending application also stands disposed of.

¶17

(S.P.GARG) JUDGE

¶18

MAY 16, 2018 / tr

¶19

W.P. (Crl.) 198/2018 Page

¶20

2 of 2

Satyavati Yadav v. the State Govt of NCT of Delhi

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Satyavati Yadav v. the State Govt of NCT of Delhi

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ankit Arora & Ors. Vs the State Govt of NCT of Delhi & Anr.

Rakesh Kumar Vs State of NCT Delhi & Ors.

Suraj Vs State

Sanjay Sonkar Vs State (Nct of Delhi)

Sanjay Sharma Vs State

Ramesh Chand Vs the State Govt of NCT of Delhi

Uma Sharma Vs SHO Gokul Puri & Anr.

Akhlaq Ahmed Khan Vs State & Anr.

Ajay Kumar Vs State (Nct of Delhi)

Sanjay Sonkar Vs State (Nct of Delhi)

Sharad Kumar @ Monty Vs State

Mohd. Faisal & Ors. Vs State & Anr.

Shyamu Vs State

Sunder Lal Vs State Govt. of NCT of Delhi