Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

DARSHAN KAUR & ORS versus STATE OF PUNJAB & ORS

High Court of Punjab and Haryana, Chandigarh

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


Darshan Kaur & Ors v. State of Punjab & Ors - CRM-39414-m-2002 [2006] RD-P&H 1690 (16 March 2006)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA, CHANDIGARH

Crl. Misc.No. 39414-M of 2002

Date of Decision: March 22, 2006

Darshan Kaur and others .................................... Petitioners Versus

State of Punjab and others ...................... Respondents Coram: Hon'ble Mr.Justice Ashutosh Mohunta Present: J.S.Toor, Advocate

for the petitioners.

Mr. N.S.Gill, AAG, Punjab,

for the respondents.

....

ASHUTOSH MOHUNTA, J. (Oral)

The petitioners have filed the present petition wherein it is prayed that a direction be issued to the respondents not to harass the petitioners in order to obtain the presence of Inderjit Singh son of the petitioner-Tirath Singh. It has been averred that Inderjit Singh is not within the control of his family and has snapped all ties with the family and, therefore, the petitioners be not called to the police station every time in order to find out the whereabouts of Inderjit Singh.

Reply has been filed by the State wherein it has been averred that Inderjit Singh son of petitioner Nos.1 and 2 is involved in number of criminal cases. It is stated that Inderjit Singh is wanted in FIR No. 262 dated 12.10.2002 under Sections 115/212/216/502/120-B read with Section 302 IPC registered at Police Station Banga as also in FIR No. 252 dated 10.10.2002 under Sections 399/402/412/414/120-B read with Section 302 IPC registered at Police Station Banga. It has been averred that in order to arrest the accused Inderjit Singh the police has to investigate the matter. It has further been averred by the respondents that the petitioners have never been harassed or detained in the police station.

[ 2 ]

Crl. Misc.No. 39414-M of 2002

In view of the reply filed by the State, there is no merit in the present petition and the same is dismissed.

22.3.2006 ( ASHUTOSH MOHUNTA )

Rupi JUDGE


Copyright

Reproduced in accordance with s52(q) of the Copyright Act 1957 (India) from judis.nic.in, indiacode.nic.in and other Indian High Court Websites

Advertisement

dwi Attorney | dui attorney | dwi | dui | austin attorney | san diego attorney | houston attorney | california attorney | washington attorney | minnesota attorney | dallas attorney | alaska attorney | los angeles attorney | dwi | dui | colorado attorney | new york attorney | new jersey attorney | san francisco attorney | seattle attorney | florida attorney | attorney | london lawyer | lawyer michigan | law firm |

Tip:
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.