Full Text
Translation output
t 31#$- HIGH COURT OF DELHI w.P.(cRL) 1050/2011
SUMARTI PRAKASH GUPTA & ORS. ..... Petitioners
Through: iVIr. Sanjay Kumar and Mr. Urna Shankar. Advocates.
SUMARTI PRAKASH GUPTA & ORS. ..... Petitioners
Through: iVIr. Sanjay Kumar and Mr. Urna Shankar. Advocates.
VERSUS
STATE &ORS.
CORAM: ..... Respondents
Through: Mr. Rajesh Mahajan, Additional Standing Counsel for the State with
Ms. Urvi Kuthiala, Advocate with SI Rakesh Kumar, PS Bhajanpura, Delhi.
\4r. Krishan Kumar, Advocate for Respondent Nos. 3 and 4. sought protection from their son
Nos. 3 and 4 and to debar them
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MUKTA GUPTA
02.09.2011 By this petition the Petitioners have and daughter in law who are Respondent from forcibly occupying the house.
L,earned counsel for Respondent Nos. 3 and 4 states that as regard the possession of the property a civil suit between the parlies is going on and as regards the relief of registration of FIR the Petitioners have already filed a complaint under Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C before the learned Metropolitan
Magistrate. w.P.(cRL) 10s0/2011 2011:DHC:17004
:a ? s Learned counsel for the Petitioners states that in the present petition he is only confining his relief limited to the prayer seeking protection fiom
Respondent Nos. 3 and 4.
A status report has been filed in response to the present petition. As per the status repoft there are differences between the family members.
There is no eminent threat to the petitioner at present and there is no need for providing police protection, however, because the Petitioners are senior citizens, the beat staff has been instructed to be in regular touch and to ensure their safety and well-being.
In view of this status report, learned counsel for the Petitioners states that he does not want to press the present petition.
Petition is dismissed as not pressed. Order dasti. n^&h-4,r8-
I ut MUKTA GUPTA, J.
SEPTEMBER O2,2OII tvnt w.P.(cRL) 10s0/201r 2011:DHC:17004
Ms. Urvi Kuthiala, Advocate with SI Rakesh Kumar, PS Bhajanpura, Delhi.
\4r. Krishan Kumar, Advocate for Respondent Nos. 3 and 4. sought protection from their son
Nos. 3 and 4 and to debar them
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MUKTA GUPTA
02.09.2011 By this petition the Petitioners have and daughter in law who are Respondent from forcibly occupying the house.
L,earned counsel for Respondent Nos. 3 and 4 states that as regard the possession of the property a civil suit between the parlies is going on and as regards the relief of registration of FIR the Petitioners have already filed a complaint under Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C before the learned Metropolitan
Magistrate. w.P.(cRL) 10s0/2011 2011:DHC:17004
:a ? s Learned counsel for the Petitioners states that in the present petition he is only confining his relief limited to the prayer seeking protection fiom
Respondent Nos. 3 and 4.
A status report has been filed in response to the present petition. As per the status repoft there are differences between the family members.
There is no eminent threat to the petitioner at present and there is no need for providing police protection, however, because the Petitioners are senior citizens, the beat staff has been instructed to be in regular touch and to ensure their safety and well-being.
In view of this status report, learned counsel for the Petitioners states that he does not want to press the present petition.
Petition is dismissed as not pressed. Order dasti. n^&h-4,r8-
I ut MUKTA GUPTA, J.
SEPTEMBER O2,2OII tvnt w.P.(cRL) 10s0/201r 2011:DHC:17004
JUDGMENT