High Court of Punjab and HaryanaCRM-M/15280/2015disposed of

Guddi And ANR v. State Of Haryana & ORS

2015-09-01Mr. Justice S.C. Malte3 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT

CHANDIGARH Date of Decision: September 1, 2015 Guddi and another

...Petitioners

Versus

State of Haryana and others

...Respondents

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NARESH KUMAR SANGHI

Present:

Mr. Mohammad Arshad, Advocate, for the petitioners.

Mr. Pawan Gaur, DAG, Haryana, for respondent Nos. 1 to 3.

Mr. G.S. Sawhney, Advocate, for respondent No. 4.

NARESH KUMAR SANGHI, J. (Oral) CRM-25520-2015:

Learned counsel for the applicant/respondent No. 4 submits that present criminal miscellaneous application for preponement of the main case has been rendered infructuous. Ordered accordingly.

CRM-25521-2015:

Prayer in this criminal miscellaneous application is for placing on record document (Annexure P-5/T).

After hearing learned counsel for the parties and going through the contents of the application, which is duly supported by an affidavit, document (Annexure P-5/T) is taken on record, subject

to all just exceptions.

Criminal miscellaneous application stands disposed of. CRM-17486-2015:

Present criminal miscellaneous application has been filed by respondent No. 4 for placing on record documents (Annexures A-1 to A-4) with their translated copies. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and going through the contents of the application, which is duly supported by an affidavit, documents (Annexure A-1 to A-4) alongwith their translated copies, are taken on record, subject to all just exceptions.

Criminal miscellaneous application stands disposed of. CRM-M-15280-2015:

Learned counsel for the State has filed reply by way of affidavit of Deputy Superintendent of Police, Ferozepur Jhirka, along with affidavits (Annexures R-2 and R-3) furnished by the petitioners, which is taken on record.

Learned counsel for the State submits that during the protection period, the petitioners submitted their respective affidavits before the Superintendent of Police, Mewat at Nuh, that they wanted to go out of the protection home to go to their house and that after release from the police protection they (petitioners) would be fully responsible for their safety.

In view of above, learned counsel for the petitioners does not press this petition at this stage.

Disposed of accordingly.

September 1, 2015 (NARESH KUMAR SANGHI) Pkapoor JUDGE