The petitioner withdrew a criminal miscellaneous petition to pursue a revision remedy. The High Court dismissed the petition upon withdrawal.
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 & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
Crl. Misc. No. M-36232 of 2011 (O&M) Date of decision : 14.05.2012
Hari Gopa
...Petitioner
Versus
State of Haryana and another
..Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MEHINDER SINGH SULLAR
Present: Mr. Rajesh Bansal, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr. Kartar Singh, D.A.G., Haryana for respondent No. 1.
Mr. Vijay Pal, Advocate for respondent No.2.
M ehinder S ingh S ullar, J. (Oral)
At the very outset, learned counsel intends to withdraw the present
petition to enable the petitioner to avail his appropriate statutory remedy of revision petition.
Dismissed as withdrawn, with the aforesaid liberty, as prayed for.
Needless to mention that if the petitioner moves an application for
condonation of delay, then the same will be considered by the concerned Court sympathetically.
May 14, 2012 ( M ehinder S ingh S ullar ) naresh.k Judge
Hari Gopa
State of Haryana
Another
Mehinder Singh Sullar
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
