Two miscellaneous applications were listed. The first was allowed with the main case preponed. The second petition was dismissed as withdrawn.
First application allowed with main case heard on the same day; second petition dismissed as withdrawn.
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. M. No.9576 of 2012 in Crl. R. No.45 of 2012 Date of Decision:13.3.2012
Rajender Singh and others
.... Petitioners
Versus
State of Haryana
.... Respondents
CORAM: Hon'ble Ms. Justice Nirmaljit Kaur
Present: Mr. Arun Yadav, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. J.S. Rattu, D.A.G. Haryana.
1.Whether Reporters of Local Newspapers may be allowed to see the judgment?
2.To be referred to the Reporters or not?
3.Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?
NIRMALJIT KAUR, J.(Oral)
Crl. M. No.9576 of 2012
This is an application for preponement of the main case.
Learned counsel for the respondent submits that he has no
objection if the main case is preponed.
Accordingly, the application is allowed and the main case is
preponed for today itself.
Crl. R. No.45 of 2012
After arguing for some time, learned counsel for the petitioners
prays that he may be allowed to withdraw the present petition.
Dismissed as withdrawn.
13.3.2012 ( NIRMALJIT KAUR ) rajeev JUDGE
Rajender Singh and others
State of Haryana
Nirmaljit Kaur
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
