The High Court dismissed an application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. as infructuous due to the efflux of time and for want of prosecution, noting the absence of the applicant's counsel.
Petition dismissed as infructuous and for want of prosecution; interim order, if any, vacated.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
Court No. - 14
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 12618 of 2006
Applicant :- Sazid & Another Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. & Another Counsel for Applicant :- Ram Kishun Mishra,Shiva Kant Srivastava Counsel for Opposite Party :- Govt. Advocate,Ajeet Singh,Sanjay Kr Singh
Hon'ble Abhai Kumar,J.
None appears to press this petition even in revised list. Even on the last date of listing i.e. 28.3.2018, none was present.
It appears that matter might have become infructuous due to efflux of time and it seems that applicants are no more interested in pursuing the matter.
The petition is dismissed as infructuous as well as for want of prosecution.
Interim order, if any, stands vacated.
In case cause of action still survives and it has not become infructuous, applicants will be at liberty to move a recall application within six weeks from today.
Order Date :- 4.4.2018 Ranjeet Sahu
Sazid & Another
Abhai Kumar
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
