Petitioners filed a criminal miscellaneous petition. The court noted that one respondent had died and others posed no physical harm. The petition was disposed of 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.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
Criminal Misc. No. M-29985 of 2009
Date of decision : November 18, 2009
Sudesh and another
....Petitioners
versus
State of Haryana and others
....Respondents
Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice L.N. Mittal
Present : Mr. Naresh Kaushik, Advocate for Mr. JS Saneta, Advocate, for the petitioners
Mr. Sidharth Sarup, AAG Haryana for respondent nos. 1 to 6
Mr. JS Dahiya, Advocate for respondent nos. 8 to 11
L.N. Mittal, J. (Oral)
Learned counsel for the petitioners states that respondent no. 7 had already died.
Learned counsel for respondent nos. 8 to 11 states that respondent nos. 8 to 11 would not cause any physical harm to the petitioners.
In view of the aforesaid, learned counsel for the petitioners states that the instant petition may be disposed of as having been rendered infructuous. Accordingly, the instant petition is disposed of as having been rendered infructuous.
November 18, 2009 ' dalbir'
Sudesh and another
State of Haryana and others
L.N. Mittal
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
