The High Court dismissed a criminal miscellaneous petition as infructuous following a police statement in which the petitioner recorded that she had no apprehension of harm from the private respondents.
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.
Crl. Misc. No.M-20362 of 2012 (O&M) -1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
Crl. Misc. No.M-20362 of 2012 (O&M) Date of Decision: August 29, 2012
Veena
....Petitioner
Versus
State of Punjab and others
...Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K.C. PURI
Present: Modh. Salim, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr. Kirat Singh Sidhu, DAG, Punjab
K.C. PURI J. (ORAL)
Reply has been filed on behalf of respondents No.1 to 4 in which statement of the petitioner has been recorded wherein she mentioned that she has no apprehension at the hands of private respondents.
In view of statement of the petitioner before police, the present petition has become infructuous.
Dismissed as rendered infructuous.
August 29, 2012 ( K.C.PURI) vcgarg JUDGE
Veena
State of Punjab
K.C. PURI
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
