Partly allowed

Savita Parashar & Ors. v. State & Ors.

Delhi HC10 Dec 2018W.P.(CRL)/3708/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court clarified that an order requiring parties to maintain peace and law and order does not create property rights. The application for recall of the status report order was partially allowed with observations distinguishing the order's scope from granting property rights.

What did the court decide?

Application allowed subject to exceptions clarifying the order does not create property rights.

Savita Parashar & Ors. Vs State & Ors. — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Delhi HC (2018)

¶1

$~76

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶3

- W.P.(CRL) 3708/2018

¶4

SAVITA PARASHAR & ORS. ..... Petitioner

¶5

Through: Ms Pragya Singh, Advocate.

¶6

versus STATE & ORS. ..... Respondents Through: Ms Nandita Rao, ASC (Crl.) for State. Mr Amit Kumar and Mr. V. K. Sharma, Advocates for R-4 and R-5.

¶7

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIBHU BAKHRU O R D E R % 17.10.2019

¶8

CRL.M.A. 38477/2019

¶9

Allowed, subject to all just exceptions.

¶10

CRL.M.A. 38476/2019

¶11

This is an application filed by respondent nos.4 and 5, inter alia, praying that the order dated 10.12.2018 be recalled. The applicants state that the said order was passed without hearing them and the same has been misused by the petitioners.

¶12

On 06.12.2018, this Court had recorded the statement made by the learned counsel appearing for the State. He had assured this Court that the apprehension of the petitioners – who had expressed fear for their safety from respondent nos.3 to 6 – would be looked into by the concerned SHO. He also stated that the respondents, including the applicants herein, would be duly sensitized to maintain peace. Additionally, the petitioners would be

¶13

provided telephone numbers of police officers so that any incident can be intimated to them. The aforesaid order was passed in view of the averments made by the petitioners expressing their apprehension regarding harm from respondent nos.3 to 6.

¶14

In compliance with the order dated 06.12.2018, a status report was filed, which was considered on 10.12.2018. The status report, inter alia, indicated that all the relatives of the petitioners had been sensitised to maintain peace.

¶15

It is apparent from the said orders that the scope of the said orders is limited to ensure that the parties maintain law and order and peace amongst themselves. The said order does not, in any manner, create rights in respect of any property in favour of any party. In view of the apprehension expressed by the applicants that the said orders have been misused, it is clarified as above. The orders passed by this Court would not preclude any of the parties from agitating their grievances and availing remedies in accordance with law.

¶16

The application is disposed of with the aforesaid observations.

¶17

Order dasti under signatures of the Court Master.

¶18

VIBHU BAKHRU, J

¶19

OCTOBER 17, 2019 MK

Savita Parashar & Ors. v. State & Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Savita Parashar & Ors. v. State & Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Vinay Kumar Vs the State Govt of NCT of Delhi

Ankit Jain Vs State of Delhi & Anr.

Subhjit Banarjee & Ors. Vs State (Govt of NCT of Delhi) & Anr.

Neeraj Sharma Vs State(Govt. of NCT of Delhi)

Gurpreet Singh Vs State Govt. of NCT Delhi & Anr.

Sh. Shakil Ahmad Vs State (N.C.T. of Delhi) & Anr.

Sonu Vs State & Ors.

Aman Singh Vs the State (Govt. of Gnct Delhi) & Ors.

Ankit Jain Vs State of Delhi & Anr.

Subhjit Banarjee & Ors. Vs State (Govt of NCT of Delhi) & Anr.

Ramesh Kumar Mann Vs State and Ors.

Virender @ Biray Vs State (Nct of Delhi)

Sonu Vs State & Anr.

Preety Singh & Anr. Vs State & Ors.