Petitioners sought direction for further protection. The High Court held that protection was already provided by the State, rendering the petition infructuous, and dismissed it.
No further direction to be issued as protection is already provided.
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.
Crl. Misc. No.M-21656 of 2012
Date of Decision: 18.10.2012
Lt. Col. Prithvi Singh Chauhan and another ....Petitioners
Versus
State of Haryana and others
....Respondents
BEFORE :- HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE DAYA CHAUDHARY
Present:Mr. N.S. Shekhawat, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr. S.S. Nara, Sr. D.A.G., Haryana for the respondent-State.
DAYA CHAUDHARY, J. (ORAL)
Learned State counsel, on instructions from Inspector Vijay Kumar, submits that necessary protection has been provided to the petitioners and hence, the present petition has become infructuous.
In view of the submission made by learned State counsel, no further direction is required to be issued as the protection has already been provided.
Dismissed as such.
18.10.2012 gurpreet
(DAYA CHAUDHARY) JUDGE
Lt. Col. Prithvi Singh Chauhan
another
State of Haryana
Daya Chaudhary
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
