A criminal miscellaneous petition seeking police protection under Section 482 Cr.P.C. was declared infructuous as the State averred the petitioners are now living happily without threat perception and do not require security.
null
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.
Criminal Misc.M-No.10364 of 2012(O & M)
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
Criminal Misc.M-No.10364 of 2012(O & M) Date of Decision:22.05.2012
Sunita & anr.
.....petitioners
Versus
State of Punjab & Ors. .....respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAMESHWAR SINGH MALIK
Present: Mr.Amit Sharma, 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 their life and liberty at the hands of private respondents.
Notice of motion was issued and pursuant thereto reply by way of affidavit of Angrej Singh, PPS, Deputy Superintendent of Police, Headquarters, Gurdaspur, has been filed.
Learned State counsel, on instructions from ASI Harbans Singh, Police Station City Gurdaspur, submits that on verification of age, petitioner No.2 has been found to be major, his date of birth being 10.08.1990. Learned State counsel further submits that both the petitioners have got their statements recorded as Annexures R-1 and R-2 to the effect that they were living happily as husband and wife and were not facing threat perception any further. They have further stated that they do not need any security.
Faced with the above, learned counsel for the petitioners
Criminal Misc.M-No.10364 of 2012(O & M)
2
fairly states that in view of the reply filed and statement made by learned State counsel, the instant petition does not survive and may be disposed of as having been rendered infructuous.
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
Sunita & anr.
State of Punjab & Ors.
Rameshwar Singh Malik
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
