A criminal revision was dismissed for want of prosecution as the petitioner failed to appear. The preceding interim order, if any, was vacated, and the matter was kept open for future recall applications.
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. - 85
Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 899 of 2016
Revisionist :- Suneel Kumar Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Revisionist :- Shri Prakash Dwivedi Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Amit Kumar,Pankaj Kumar Asthana
Hon'ble Gautam Chowdhary,J.
List has been revised.
None has appeared to press this revision on behalf of the revisionist despite repeated calls. Sri Pankaj Kumar Asthana, learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2 and learned A.G.A. is present.
The revision stands dismissed for want of prosecution.
Interim order, if any, stands vacated.
It may be observed that if some recall application is moved in future that shall be placed before appropriate bench. This matter shall not be treated as tied up with this bench because the case is being dismissed not on merits.
Office is directed to communicate this order forthwith to the lower court concerned.
Order Date :- 22.7.2021 VPS
Suneel Kumar
State of U.P.
Gautam Chowdhary
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
