Dismissed
Neena Goyal v. State of Punjab and Ors.
Punjab & Haryana HCCRM-M/22025/2018
Case brief
from the order text
What is this about?
COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH…
What the court decided
AI extract
COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH…
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.
THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
230 CRM-M-22025-2018 (O&M) Date of Decision: 15.12.2022
Neena Goyal …Petitioner
Versus
State of Punjab and Others …Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JAGMOHAN BANSAL
Present:- Mr. Abhimanyu Kalsy, Advocate for the petitioner
Mr. Digvijay Nagpal, AAG, Punjab
JAGMOHAN BANSAL, J. (Oral)
Status report dated 15.12.2022 by way of affidavit of Ramandeep Singh Bhullar, ACP (Central) Ludhiana is taken on record. Registry is directed to tag the same at an appropriate place.
Learned State counsel, at the outset, submits that an application was filed before learned Civil Judge, Junior Division, Ludhiana to permit to take photograph of the agreement for the purpose of comparison of signatures of the petitioner and her husbandSushil Kumar. The application has been allowed by learned Civil Judge, vide order dated 13.12.2022.
On being confronted with the afore-stated fact, learned counsel for the petitioner states that his grievance stands redressed and accordingly, the petition may be disposed of as infructuous.
Disposed of as infructuous.
(JAGMOHAN BANSAL) JUDGE
15.12.2022 Mohit Kumar
Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No Whether reportable Yes/No
MOHIT KUMAR 2022.12.15 15:49 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment
Neena Goyal
State of Punjab
Jagmohan Bansal
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court