The petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for protection of life and liberty was disposed of as having become infructuous after the State recorded statements indicating the threat perception no longer existed and the father had no objection to the marriage.
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.
1
Criminal Misc.M-No.10351 of 2012(O & M)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
Criminal Misc.M-No.10351 of 2012(O & M) Date of Decision:22.05.2012
Bhupinder Sogi & anr.
Bhupinder Sogi & anr. .....petitioners Versus State of Punjab & Ors. .....respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAMESHWAR SINGH MALIK
Present: Mr.J.S.Dadwal, Advocate for the petitioners
Mr.Deepak Balyan, Additional Advocate General, Punjab
RAMESHWAR SINGH MALIK J.(ORAL):
The petitioners have approached this Court, through the instant petition, under Section 482 Cr.P.C.seeking directions against the official respondents for providing protection to the life and liberty of the petitioners as they were apprehending danger to their life and liberty at the hands of private respondents.
Notice of motion was issued.
Learned State counsel, on instructions from HC Sandeep Singh, Police Station Mukandpur, District Shaheed Bhagat Singh Nagar, submits that on verification of age, petitioner No.1 has been found to be major, her date of birth being 14.10.1991 as per the matriculation examination certificate issued by the Punjab School Education Board. Learned State counsel further submits that the petitioners have got their statements recorded to the effect that the threat perception was no more subsisting. Further Manjit Singh-respondent No.4, who is father of petitioner No.1 has also got his statement recorded to the effect that they have no objection to the marriage of the petitioners. Thus, learned State
Criminal Misc.M-No.10351 of 2012(O & M)
2
counsel submits that the instant petition has been rendered infructuous and may be disposed of, as such.
Faced with the above situation, learned counsel for the petitioners states that in view of the statement made by learned State counsel, the present petition has been rendered infructuous and may be disposed of, as such.
In view of the above statements made by learned counsel for the parties, the present petition is ordered to be disposed of as having been rendered infructuous.
(RAMESHWAR SINGH MALIK) JUDGE
22.05.2012 neenu
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Bhupinder Sogi
State of Punjab
RAMESHWAR SINGH MALIK
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
