The high court disposed of the petition as infructuous because the investigation was remanded to the same police station, rendering the challenge unnecessary.
Petition dismissed as having rendered infructuous.
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
205
CRM-M-3080-2019 Date of Decision: 21.05.2019
Shashi Kumar @ Sunil Mehta
.... Petitioner
Versus
State of Haryana and others
.... Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAMENDRA JAIN
Present: Mr.Suresh K.Jindal, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr. Munish Sharma, AAG, Haryana.
Mr. Aman Dhir, Advocate for respondent No.6.
Mr.Johny, Advocate for Mr.Sukhdeep Singh Sandhu, Advocate for respondent No.7.
RAMENDRA JAIN, J. (ORAL)
Reply filed on behalf of respondent No. 7 is taken on record. Be tagged at the appropriate place. A copy thereof, has been supplied to learned counsel for the petitioner.
Learned counsel for the State submits that this petition has become infructuous in view of the fact that the investigation has been referred back to the same Police Station at Sonepat.
Dismissed as having rendered infructuous.
May 21, 2019 (RAMENDRA JAIN) anju JUDGE
Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No Whether Reportable Yes/No
ANJU 2019.05.23 16:51 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document phhc
Shashi Kumar
State of Haryana
Mr. Sukhdeep Singh Sandhu
RAMENDRA JAIN
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
