Petitioner filed a criminal miscellaneous petition. State counsel submitted that the underlying FIR was cancelled as the matter was civil in nature. Court held petition infructuous and dismissed it.
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.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
Crl. Misc. No. M- 20259 of 2010 (O&M) Date of Decision: September 24, 2010
Ram Singh
........Petitioner
Versus
State of Haryana and another ........Respondents
CORAM : HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SABINA
Present: Mr. S.K. Chauhan, Advocate for Mr. R.M. Singh, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr. Satyavir Singh Yadav, DAG, Haryana. Mr. Parminder Singh, Advocate, for respondent No.2.
SABINA, J.
Heard.
Learned State counsel has tendered reply on behalf of State. Para 6 of the reply reads as under :-
“That in reply to para no.6 of the petition it is submitted that the FIR No.162 dated 22.2.2010, u/s 420,467,468,471,120-B IPC has already been cancelled on 5.7.2010 as the matter between the parties was found civil in nature.”
In these circumstances, this petition has been rendered infructuous. Dismissed as infructuous.
(SABINA) JUDGE
September 24, 2010 Anand
Ram Singh
State of Haryana
Sabina
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
