The High Court of Delhi disposed of CRL.L.P. 30/2018, noting the petitioner was allowed to present submissions in a separate leave appeal (Crl.L.P. 675/2017) regarding the same judgment, rendering the present petition unnecessary.
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.
$~18.
MINOR S
THROUGH HER FATHER MUKESH CHAND ..... Petitioner Through: Mr. Saurabh Malik, Advocate.
versus
STATE OF DELHI & ANR ..... Respondents Through: Mr. Rajat Katyal, APP along with SI Raj Kumar, PS-K.M. Pur, for the State. Mr. S.K. Shukla, Advocate for respondent No.2.
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIPIN SANGHI HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE P.S.TEJI
O R D E R % 21.02.2018
We have already granted leave to appeal in the leave petition preferred by the State being Crl.L.P.675/2017 in respect of the same impugned judgment. The petitioner herein is permitted to advance his submissions in the said appeal.
Consequently, there is no need to pursue with the present leave petition. The same stands disposed of as such.
VIPIN SANGHI, J
P.S.TEJI, J
FEBRUARY 21, 2018
B.S. Rohella
MINOR S THROUGH HER FATHER MUKESH CHAND
STATE OF DELHI & ANR
VIPIN SANGHI
P.S. T
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
