Certo Is this judgment real?
Beta, Supreme Court only. We check Supreme Court of India judgments only for now: a High Court citation reads "Not in our corpus", which never means it does not exist.

Supreme Court of India

GANGA MALIK versus UNION OF INDIA & ORS.

Decided
16 March 2018
Judges listed
A.K. SIKRI (as the open data lists them; this may not name the whole bench)
Disposal
Dismissed

Citations

Official
[2018] 4 S.C.R. 875 · 2018 INSC 240

Cited by

We found no other Supreme Court judgment we hold that cites this one.

Counted only in the Supreme Court judgments we hold whose text we could read, not in High Court judgments. We match each citation to a judgment automatically, so a citation we cannot match is not counted. "Cited" says only that a judgment refers to this one, not whether it followed, distinguished or overruled it.

The Court's text

Paragraphs from our copy of the Supreme Court Reports print, with the Court's own paragraph numbers, the printed page and, where printed, the margin letter. Link to paragraph N with #para-N.

1

The petitioner’s case in this writ petition is that her son, Amitava Malik, Sub-Inspector of Police was killed on 13.10.2017 when Police party which consisted of Amitava Malik proceeded to arrest several accused who were camping at south bank of river Chhota Rangeet, P.S. Sadar, Dajeeling. While chasing the miscreants the Police personnel were fired upon in which Amitava Malik son of the petitioner died. The petitioner in this writ petition has prayed for the following relief: a) Issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ order or direction to the respondents to ensure that the petitioner and her family’s life is protected; b) Issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ order or direction to respondent No.2, State of West Bengal to expeditiously conclude the trial in Sadar PS Case No.213 dated 13.10.2017 preferably within a time bound manner and punish the culprits; c) Issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ order or direction to the respondent to pay compensation to the petitioner for the irreparable loss of losing her son which cannot be quantified in monetary terms.

pp. 875–876, margin G

2

Petitioner in the writ petition has stated that Case No.213 has already been registered in P.S. Sadar in which charge-sheet has also been submitted and trial is going on. In so far as trial of criminal case is concerned the law shall take its own course. In so far as other reliefs, we are of the view that it is open for the petitioner to approach respondent No.2 for appropriate relief.

p. 876, margin D

3

By granting the aforesaid liberty to the petitioner, the writ petition is dismissed.

p. 876, margin E