Obscure High Court order where Justice Rajan Gupta allowed a reply application and dismissed a transfer petition as infructuous because the State had already submitted a charge sheet against the accused.
Application for reply allowed; Transfer petition dismissed as infructuous.
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.
CRM No. M-2810 of 2009 1
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH.
CRM No. M-2810 of 2009 (O&M) Date of decision: 2.4.2009
Mehar Singh ...Petitioner
Versus
The Sr. Superintendent of Police & others ...Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJAN GUPTA
Present: Mr. Manu K. Bhandari, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. Shailesh Gupta, DAG, Punjab. H.S. Batth, Advocate, for respondents No.4 to 6.
Rajan Gupta, J.
CRM No.17062 of 2009
This is an application for placing on record reply on behalf of respondents No.4 to 6.
The application is allowed. Reply is taken on record.
CRM No. M-2810 of 2009
The only prayer made in this petition is for transfer of investigation to some other Agency of a case registered under Sections 336, 506, 148 and 149 IPC at Police Station Patran, District Patiala, vide FIR No.252 dated 14.12.2008.
Learned counsel for the State has submitted that investigation in this case has been completed and challan has been submitted against the accused in the competent court of jurisdiction.
In view of the statement made by learned State counsel, this petition has been rendered infructuous and is dismissed as such.
April 02, 2009 'rajpal'
(RAJAN GUPTA) JUDGE
Mehar Singh
The Sr. Superintendent of Police & others
Rajan Gupta
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
