Kajal v. State
Case brief
What is this about?
This short order disposed of a writ petition under Article 226 Cr.P.C. seeking protection and non-interference in matrimonial life. The court accepted assurances from respondents and directed police action pending location details, disposing of pending applications.
What did the court decide?
Disposed petition on receipt of assurances from respondents; directed SHO to ensure safety pending sharing of whereabouts; disposed of pending applications.
What the court decided
$~35
- IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
- W.P.(CRL) 1555/2024, CRL.M.A. 15141/2024 KAJAL AND ANR. .....Petitioners
Through: Mr. S.B. Sharma and Mr. Sanjeev Rawat, Advs.
versus STATE & ORS. .....Respondents Through: Mr.Yasir Rauf Ansari, ASC (Crl.) for State with Mr.Alok Sharma and Mr.Vasu Agarwal, Advocates with SI Mukesh Kumar, P.S. Delhi Cantt. Mr.P.S. Devgan, Mr.Pankaj Srivastava and Mr.Vinod Verma, Advocates with respondent No.2 to 5 in person.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANOOP KUMAR MENDIRATTA O R D E R
- % 02.08.2024
- Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India read with Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (‘Cr.P.C.’) has been preferred on behalf of the petitioners with the following prayers:
“a) Issue a writ of prohibition/protection thereby directing the respondents no. 1 and 7 to provide protection to the petitioners of their life and liberty and not to harm them in any manner.
Issues for consideration
3 issues framed by the court
Whether to issue writ of prohibition/protection and pass directions restraining respondents from interfering in petitioners' matrimonial life.
Whether police were to ensure safety of petitioners.
Whether to dispose of pending applications.
Parties & counsel
- petitioner
Kajal and Anr.
- respondent
State & Ors.
Coram
Anoop Kumar Mendiratta
Case details
As recorded by the court registry
Similar cases
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court