Simran @ Veena v. State




    
      Date of decision: 6th January, 2016  Simran  Petitioner

Versus

State of Punjab and others  Respondents  

   

 
  
 1.

Whether Reporters of Local Newspapers may be allowed to see the judgment?

2.

Whether to be referred to the Reporters or not? 3.

Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?

Present:

Mr. P.K.S. Phoolka, Advocate along with the petitioner.

Mr. C.S. Brar, Dy. Advocate General, Punjab with ASI Karamjit Singh, PS Canal Colony, Bathinda.

 
!"

# Mr. P.K.S. Phoolka, Advocate puts in appearance and files his power of attorney on behalf of the petitioner. Learned State counsel has filed status report by way of affidavit of Davinder Singh, PPS, DSP City3I, Bathinda. The same is taken on record.

Petitioner Simran and her counsel have made a statement before this Court that she has been restored custody of her male child Vivek by the police in compliance of the orders dated 24.12.2015 and that since her grievance stands redressed she does not want to pursue the present petition and withdraws the same however, reserving her rights to move the Court in case of any such eventuality. RATTAN PAL SINGH 2016.01.11 16:33 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Punjab & Haryana High Court



 

  Allowed to do so.

The petition stands dismissed as withdrawn with liberty aforesaid.

At this juncture, Mr. Ramesh Sharma, Advocate has put in appearance on behalf of respondents No.4 and 6 and has sought to raise certain issues of adoption. He is directed to invoke the jurisdiction of appropriate Court, if so advised, under the provisions of law.

"

 
#   $%&$'()!)
 RATTAN PAL SINGH 2016.01.11 16:33 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Punjab & Haryana High Court