In a criminal miscellaneous writ petition filed in 2007, counsel for the petitioner was absent. The court found the cause of action likely no longer survived and the petition infructuous, dismissing it accordingly.
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. - 86
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 18595 of 2007
Petitioner :- Motikhan Respondent :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Petitioner :- B.G. Yadav,Rajendra Kumar Yadav Counsel for Respondent :- Govt. Advocate
Hon'ble Gautam Chowdhary,J.
Case called out in revised list. No one is present on behalf of petitioner to press this petition. However, learned A.G.A. for the State is present.
The matter is an old one pending since 2007.
It appears that either the cause of action no more survives or the petitioner has lost interest in this matter or it has otherwise become infructuous and, probably for this reason, none is interested to have decided this matter on merits and that is why, counsel for petitioner is absent.
However, I have gone through the pleadings, grounds as also reliefs sought and find that the petitioner is not able to make out a case so as to justify interference of this Court by granting reliefs, as prayed for.
In view of the above, the present petition is dismissed as infructuous.
Order Date :- 26.4.2022 S.Ali
Digitally signed by SHAUKAT ALI Date: 2022.04.27 11:24:16 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Motikhan
State of U.P.
Hon'ble Gautam Chowdhary,J.
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
