Petition under Article 226 seeking police protection of the petitioners' lives and liberty and non-interference by respondent No.4. After the State filed a reply showing police efforts in the matter, the court found no further orders required and disposed of the petition without granting any specific direction.
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
258
CRWP-9860-2024
Date of Decision: 04.11.2024
Mohammaddeen and others
...Petitioners
Versus
State of Punjab and others
…Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANOOP CHITKARA
Present: Mr. Kulbir Singh Saini, Advocate for the petitioners.
Mr. Akshay Kumar, AAG., Punjab.
ANOOP CHITKARA, J.
(ANOOP CHITKARA)
JUDGE
04.11.2024 archana Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes Whether reportable: No.
ARCHANA ARORA 2024.11.07 09:54 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Mohammaddeen and others
State of Punjab
Respondent No.4
Anoop Chitkara
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
