The High Court dismissed an application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. titled 'Application of Court No. - 73' as the applicant's counsel failed to appear despite repeated calls, with no request for adjournment, citing want of prosecution.
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. - 73
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 21216 of 2016
Applicant :- Vijay Kumar And Another Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Desh Ratan Chaudhary Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Raj Kumar Dhama
Hon'ble Om Prakash-VII,J.
Cause list has been revised.
None appears on behalf of the applicants inspite of repeated calls.
There is no request for adjournment on behalf of the applicants.
Shri Raj Kumar Dhama, learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2 as well as learned A.G.A. for the State are present.
Application u/s 482 Cr.P.C. is dismissed for want of prosecution.
Interim order, if any, stands vacated.
Copy of this order be sent to the court concerned so that the case pending before the court below may proceed further in accordance with law.
Order Date :- 26.8.2019 Sanjeet
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Vijay Kumar And Another
State Of U.P. And Another
Om Prakash-VII
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
