State argued petitioners do not fear threats based on recorded statements. Bench dismissed the petition as infructuous, directing petitioners to approach police representation if aggrieved later.
None; 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
Criminal Misc. No. M-11804 of 2012 Date of decision: 16.07.2012.
Indu Rangra and another
..Petitioners
Versus
State of Haryana and others ..Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE DAYA CHAUDHARY
Present: Mr. Bhupinder Ghai, Advocate, for the petitioners.
Mr. S.S. Nara, Sr. DAG, Haryana, for respondents No.1 to 4 – State.
None for respondents No.5 and 6.
Daya Chaudhary, J. (Oral)
Reply on behalf of State has been filed in the Court and the
same is taken on record.
Learned State counsel on the basis of reply submits that the statements of the petitioners as well as mother of petitioner No.1 have been recorded and the petitioners have specifically stated in their statements that they are not apprehending any threat to their lives and liberty
In view of the statements made by the petitioners, no further direction is required to be issued and the petition has become infructuous.
Dismissed as infructuous.
However, In case, the petitioners still feel aggrieved by any action of the respondents or any apprehension of threat is there, they are at liberty to move representation to the Police authorities, which shall be looked into by the Police authorities.
(DAYA CHAUDHARY) JUDGE
16.07.2012 neetu
Indu Rangra
another
State of Haryana
Daya Chaudhary
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
