Criminal miscellaneous petition wherein respondents reconciled the factum of marriage. Counsel assured non-harassment, rendering prayer infructuous. Petitioner sought withdrawal; order dismissed the petition as withdrawn.
Petitioner allowed to withdraw the petition, thereby dismissed.
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.
Crl. Misc. No. M-17508 of 2010 1
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH.
Crl. Misc. No. M-17508 of 2010 (O&M) Date of decision: 9.7.2010
Heena and another ...Petitioners
Versus
State of Punjab and others
...Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJAN GUPTA
Present: Mr. Balkar singh, Advocate, for the petitioners. Mr. Shailesh Gupta, Deputy Advocate General, Punjab for respondents No.1 to 3.
Mr. Peeush Gagneja, Advocate, for respondents No.4 & 5.
Rajan Gupta, J. (oral)
Mr. Peeush Gagneja, Advocate has put in appearance on behalf of respondents No.4 and 5. He submits that both respondents No.4 and 5 are present in court and they have reconciled the factum of marriage of the petitioners. Learned counsel assures the court that respondents No.4 and 5 shall not harass the petitioners in any manner.
Learned State counsel submits that in view of statement made by counsel for respondents No.4 and 5, the prayer made in this petition has been rendered infructuous.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that under these circumstances, he may be allowed to withdraw this petition.
Dismissed as withdrawn.
(RAJAN GUPTA) JUDGE
9.7.2010 'rajpal'
Heena
State of Punjab
Rajan Gupta
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
