Disposed
Satish Sharma v. State of Haryana and Others
Punjab & Haryana HCCRM-M/10108/2012
Case brief
from the order text
What is this about?
of 2012 1 IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES…
What the court decided
AI extract
of 2012 1 IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES…
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-10108 of 2012
1
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
CRM No.M-10108 of 2012 Date of decision:07.08.2012
Satish Sharma
...Petitioner
Versus
State of Haryana and others
...Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAMESHWAR SINGH MALIK
Present: Ms.Seema Munjal, Advocate, for the petitioner.
Mr.Kshitij Sharma, AAG, Haryana.
Mr.Gaurav Singla, Advocate, for respondent Nos. 5 to 13.
RAMESHWAR SINGH MALIK, J. (Oral)
Feeling aggrieved against the alleged inaction on the part of respondent authorities, the petitioner has approached this Court by way of instant petition under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure invoking its inherent jurisdiction seeking directions against the official respondents to take necessary action against respondent Nos. 4 to 13.
Notice of motion was issued and pursuant thereto reply dated 20.5.2012 has been filed, by way of affidavit of Jaivir Rathi, Deputy Superintendent of Police, Palwal, on behalf of respondent Nos. 1 to 3.
Learned counsel for the State submits that the Superintendent of Police, Palwal-respondent No.2 has already
CRM No.M-10108 of 2012 2
initiated the departmental action against respondent No.4. He further submits that in view of the reply filed and action having already initiated against respondent No.4, the present petition does not survive and may be disposed of, as such.
Faced with the above situation, learned counsel for the petitioner fairly submits that in view of the reply filed by the State and statement made by the learned counsel for the State, the grievance of the petitioner has been redressed and the present petition has become infructuous and may be disposed of, as such.
In view of the above statements made by the learned counsel for the parties, the instant petition is disposed of as having been rendered infructuous.
07.08.2012 (RAMESHWAR SINGH MALIK) mks JUDGE
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Satish Sharma
State of Haryana
Rameshwar Singh Malik
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court