Petitioner challenged police harassment due to purported further investigation despite final report submission. Court noted State counsel's assurance of no harassment, rendering the petition infructuous, and dismissed it.
None; prayer deemed infructuous upon State assurance.
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.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
Criminal Misc. No. M- 23098 of 2009 Date of decision: November 18, 2009
Gajinder Kumar Vohra -Petitioner
Versus
State of Punjab & others -Respondents
Coram Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rajan Gupta
Present: Mr. Loveleen Dhaliwal, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. Shilesh Gupta, DAG, Punjab.
Rajan Gupta, J.(Oral)
The only grievance of the petitioner is that despite submission of final report under Section 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure in the competent court, the petitioner is being harassed by the police on the pretext that further investigation is being carried out.
Learned State counsel (on the instructions from ASI Subhash Chander, who is present in Court) submits that no harassment shall be meted out to the petitioner by the police officials in respect of the instant case and the petitioner shall not be summoned except in due course of law.
In view of the statement made by learned State counsel, the prayer made in the petition has been rendered infructuous. The petition stands dismissed as such.
[Rajan Gupta] Judge
November 18, 2009. 'ask'
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Gajinder Kumar Vohra
State of Punjab
Rajan Gupta
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
