The High Court dismissed the criminal miscellaneous writ petition contended that as the final report in the underlying matter had been submitted, the petitioner has no locus standi to seek interference under Article 226.
Intermitt order, if any, stands 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. - 34
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 3021 of 2019
Petitioner :- Nitendra Chauhan @ Nitendra Singh Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Bindu Kumari Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.
Hon'ble Sudhir Agarwal,J. Hon'ble Rajeev Misra,J.
Nitendra Chauhan @ Nitendra Singh
State Of U.P.
Sudhir Agarwal
Rajeev Misra
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
