Petitioner's criminal miscellaneous petition was dismissed as withdrawn with liberty to approach the appropriate authority under Chapter XII CrPC, while assuring expeditious consideration of future applications.
Petition dismissed as withdrawn with liberty to file an appropriate petition under CrPC Chapter XII.
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- 16234 of 2012(O&M) Date of Decision: 29.5.2012
Subeg Singh
.....Petitioner
Versus
State of Punjab and others
.....Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAMESHWAR SINGH MALIK
Present: Mr. K.S.Dhaliwal, Advocate for the petitioner
RAMESHWAR SINGH MALIK J.(ORAL)
Learned counsel for the petitioner fairly states that petitioner has got an equally efficacious alternative remedy, which has not been availed by him, so far.
During the course of hearing, when confronted with the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sakiri Vasu versus State of U.P. And another, (2008) 2 SCC 409 , learned counsel for the petitioner very fairly states that this petition may be dismissed as withdrawn with liberty to avail the alternative remedy in terms of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sakiri Vasu's case (supra).
In view of the above statement made by the learned counsel for the petitioner and without prejudice to the rights of the parties, the instant petition is ordered to be dismissed as withdrawn, with liberty as prayed for.
Criminal Misc. No. M- 16234 of 2012(O&M)
2
However, lest this order is misunderstood, it is made clear that as and when the petitioner moves an appropriate petition before the concerned authority under chapter XII of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, the same shall be considered dispassionately and expeditiously, in accordance with law.
With the observations made above, the petition stands
disposed of.
(RAMESHWAR SINGH MALIK) JUDGE
29.5.2012 AK Sharma
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Sakiri Vasu versus State of U.P. And anotherReferred¶13
Sakiri Vasu versus State of U.P. And another, (2008) 2 SCC 409 · Who else cites this
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Subeg Singh
State of Punjab
Rameshwar Singh Malik
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
