This single-judge order dismissed the criminal miscellaneous petition, holding the petitioner had an alternative remedy available under the law as laid down in Sakiri Vasu vs. State of U.P.
The petitioner was directed to exercise the available alternative remedy if so advised.
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
Criminal Misc. No. M-2431 of 2011 Date of decision:-25.1.2011
Raman Sharma
...Petitioner
Versus
State of Punjab and others
...Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE RITU BAHRI
Present:Ms. Seema Pasricha, Advocate for the petitioner.
RITU BAHRI J.(Oral)
The petitioner has an alternative remedy in view of law laid down in Sakiri Vasu Versus State of U.P. and others , 2008(1) RCR (Criminal) 392.
The petitioner, if so advised, may exercise his alternative remedy in terms of the law afore-mentioned.
Dismissed.
January 25, 2011 Vijay Asija
( RITU BAHRI ) JUDGE
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Sakiri Vasu vs. State of U.P.Referred¶11
Sakiri Vasu Versus State of U.P. and others, 2008(1) RCR (Criminal) 392.
Raman Sharma
State of Punjab
Ritu Bahri
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
