The petitioner withdrew the criminal miscellaneous petition. The High Court allowed the withdrawal but dismissed it due to the withdrawal and directed recovery of previously imposed costs.
Allowed the prayer for withdrawal but dismissed the petition, directed recovery of costs.
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- 2673 of 2012 (O&M). Date of Decision:- 17.11.2012.
Hardip Singh
Petitioner.
Versus
State of Punjab.
Respondent.
CORAM : HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE NARESH KUMAR SANGHI.
Present: - Mr.Gursharan Singh, Advocate,
for the petitioner.
NARESH KUMAR SANGHI,J.
At the very out set, learned counsel prays for
withdrawal of the present petition.
Allowed as prayed for.
Dismissed as withdrawn.
Vide order dated 17.10.2012, this court had
imposed costs of 3000/- on the petitioner which was to be deposited with the Punjab Legal Services Authority, Chandigarh. The said costs have not been deposited, therefore, the Registry is directed to initiate proceedings in accordance with law against the petitioner so as to effect the recovery of the costs of 3000/-.
(NARESH KUMAR SANGHI) JUDGE
17.11.2012
Anoop
Hardip Singh
State of Punjab
NARESH KUMAR SANGHI
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
