Petitioners challenged a representation regarding an ongoing investigation. The court noted the victim's statement was against prosecution and instructed the State to decide the representation internally without passing any directions. The petition was disposed.
No directions required; matter left for State consideration.
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-17561 of 2015 Date of Decision: 17.05.2016
Raj Kumar and others
......Petitioners
Versus
State of Punjab and others
......Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANITA CHAUDHRY
Present: Ms. Rakhi Sharma, Advocate for the petitioners.
Mr. K.S.Aulakh, AAG, Punjab.
ANITA CHAUDHRY, J(ORAL)
Victim Khushbu is present in person along with her mother-in-law. She states that she is living with her husband. She states that she is 20 years of old.
State counsel says that statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. has been recorded. She has given a statement against the prosecution. State counsel says that the matter is still under investigation.
State would decide the representation given by the petitioners at their own level. No directions are required to be passed.
Petition stands disposed of accordingly.
(ANITA CHAUDHRY) JUDGE
May 17, 2016 Gurpreet
GURPREET SINGH 2016.05.19 10:17 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document High Court Chandigarh
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Raj Kumar and others
State of Punjab and others
Anita Chaudhry
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
