This criminal miscellaneous petition sought a direction to private respondents due to an apprehended threat. The Court dismissed the petition as infructuous, finding that the statements made did not establish any apprehension of threat to the lives and liberty of the petitioners.
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.
Criminal Misc. No. M-3886 of 2012
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
Criminal Misc. No. M-3886 of 2012 Date of decision: 03.07.2012.
Gollan and another
..Petitioners
Versus
State of Haryana and others
..Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE DAYA CHAUDHARY
Present: None for the petitioners.
Mr. S.S. Nara, Sr. DAG, Haryana, for respondents No.1 to 3 – State.
None for respondents No.4 and 5.
Daya Chaudhary, J. (Oral)
Prayer in the present petition is for issuance of direction to private respondents as the petitioners are apprehending threat at their instance.
Notice of motion was issued on 10.02.2012.
In response to notice of motion, reply has been filed by
the State.
Learned State counsel on the basis of reply submits that an inquiry was conducted in the matter and it was found that petitioner No.1 was already married with one Surjit Singh and is having children out of the said wedlock. It has also been mentioned in the reply that petitioner No.2 has furnished affidavit to the effect that there is no danger to the lives of the petitioners.
Since this petition is only for grant of protection so
Criminal Misc. No. M-3886 of 2012
2
nothing can be said with regard to the validity of the marriage.
In view of the statements made by the petitioners, it appears that there is no apprehension of threat to the lives and liberty of the petitioners and as such, no direction can be issued. Accordingly, the present petition has become infructuous.
Dismissed as infructuous.
(DAYA CHAUDHARY) JUDGE
03.07.2012 neetu
2 issues framed by the court
Whether direction can be issued to private respondents for protection when petitioners apprehend threat.
Whether the petitioners substantiated an apprehension of threat to their lives and liberties.
Gollan and another
State of Haryana
Daya Chaudhary
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
