Disposed

Indu Sharma v. State

Himachal Pradesh HC4 May 2012CRWP/5/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Himachal Pradesh permitted the petitioner to move a fresh application under Section 97 Cr.P.C. within three days and directed the police to produce the child for access, disposing of the criminal writ petition.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner permitted to move fresh application under Section 97 Cr.P.C. within 3 days; Respondent No. 4 to produce child before Respondent No. 3; access granted to petitioner; proceedings concluded wi

Indu Sharma Vs State — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Himachal Pradesh HC (2012)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA

¶3

Cr. W.P. No. 5 of 2012 Decided on:4.5.2012

¶4

________________________________________________________ Indu Sharma W/o Sh. Rohit Sharma, R/o Village Baroli, Tappa Bani, Tehsil Barsar, District Hamirpur, H.P.

¶5

.......Petitioner

¶6

Versus

¶7

State of H.P. through Principal Secretary (Home) to the Government of Himachal Pradesh, H.P. Secretariat, Shimla, H.P.

¶8

Superintendent of Police, District Hamirpur, (HP)

¶9

Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Barsar, District Hamirpur (HP)

¶10

Station House Officer, Barsar, District Hamirpur (HP)

¶11

Rohit Sharma S/o Sh. Om Prakash, R/o village Baroli, Tehsil Barsar, District-Hamirpur, H.P.

¶12

Sh. Om Prakash S/o Sh. Sita Ram, R/o Village-Baroli, Tehsil Barsar, District Hamirpur (HP)

¶13

China Devi W/o Sh.Om Prakash R/o village Baroli, Tehsil Barsar, District Hamirpur, H.P.

¶14

Shabbo Devi wife of Bidhi Chand R/o Village Kalohan Tehsil Barsar, District Barsar, District Hamirpur (H.P.)

¶15

.......Respondents

¶16

Civil Writ Petition Under Articles-226 of the Constitution of India.

¶17

________________________________________________________ Coram

¶18

Hon'ble Mr. Justice R.B. Misra, Judge. Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rajiv Sharma, Judge

¶19

Whether approved for reporting?

¶20

For the Petitioner : M/s Vijender Katoch and Arun Sharma, Advocates.

¶21

For the Respondent(s) : Mr. R.K. Sharma, Senior Addl. A.G. with Mr. Vikas Rathore, Dy. A.G., for the respondent-State.

¶22

____________________________________________________ Justice Rajiv Sharma, Judge (oral):

¶23

Cr. M.P. No. 349 of 2012

¶24

Allowed.

¶25

¶26

Cr. W.P. No. 5 of 2012

¶27

Though the petitioner has already moved an application under Section 97 Cr.P.C. before the 3^rd respondent, however the same has been withdrawn on 27.4.2012.

¶28

In view of the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, the petitioner is permitted to move a fresh application before respondent No. 3 within a period of three days from today. Respondent No. 4 is directed to produce the child before respondent No. 3. The access of the child shall also be given to the petitioner by respondent No. 3 i.e. Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Barsar. The proceedings shall be concluded by the respondent No. 3, within a period of three weeks from today. 3. In view of the above directions/observations made hereinabove, the present criminal writ petition stands disposed of, so also the pending application(s), if any. No costs.

¶29

Copy dasti on usual terms.

¶30

(Justice R.B. Misra,) Judge

¶31

(Justice Rajiv Sharma), Judge.

¶32

May 4 2012

¶33

(kalpana)

Indu Sharma v. State

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Indu Sharma v. State

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

Ram Singh Vs State

State Vs Poonam Kaushal

B.B.Memorial Sr.Sec.School Vs State

Njpc. Vs State

St.Edward'S School Vs Indu Kaushal

Prem Lal Vs State