Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

- Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc - ...
Upgrade to Premium
[Cites 3, Cited by 4]

Punjab-Haryana High Court

Tek Chand Sharma @ Tikaram vs State Of Haryana & Anr on 28 April, 2016

Author: Rakesh Kumar Jain

Bench: Rakesh Kumar Jain

         IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
                      AT CHANDIGARH
                      ****
                                CWP No.3545 of 2016
                                Date of Decision:28.04.2016


Tek Chand Sharma                        .....Petitioner
      Vs.
State of Haryana and another            .....Respondents


CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR JAIN

Present:-     Mr. Tek Chand Sharma- petitioner in person.

              Mr. P.P. Chahar, Deputy Advocate General, Haryana.
                           ****


RAKESH KUMAR JAIN, J.(Oral)

This petition is filed by the petitioner who is appearing in person for issuance of a direction to respondent No.3 (SDMC), Hodal to attach the property in question in terms of Section 146 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short, `Cr.P.C'), from the date of application and also to attach the income/ lease/money accrued from the bhatta (brick kiln).

The petitioner is an ex-serviceman. He is one of the siblings of Net Ram who has a dispute with his own other brothers and therefore, he had filed an application under Section 145 of the Cr.P.C before respondent No.3. Though the SDM had initiated proceedings but he was not taking it to the logical end and was adjourning it time and again. Hence, the present petition has been filed.

The Court is informed today that the petition filed under Section 145 of Cr.P.C by the petitioner has been dismissed by the SDM on 8.3.2016. A copy of the order, though in vernacular, has been 1 of 2 ::: Downloaded on - 04-05-2016 00:03:19 ::: CWP No.3545 of 2016 -2- produced before the Court. Since the application has already been dismissed by respondent No.3, therefore, this petition has become infructuous. However, the petitioner has the remedy to challenge the order dated 8.3.2016 of the SDM, Hodal which he may avail, in accordance with law, if so advised.

April 28, 2016                                    ( RAKESH KUMAR JAIN )
renu                                                     JUDGE




                                         2 of 2


                      ::: Downloaded on - 04-05-2016 00:03:20 :::