Petitioners sought leave to withdraw a writ petition due to maintained contact with respondents. The withdrawal was permitted and the petition dismissed as withdrawn.
Petition dismissed as withdrawn upon grant of leave to withdraw.
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.
$~30
RINKI KUMARI & ANR ..... Petitioner Represented by: Mr. Yogesh Rathee, Advocate. Petitioner Nos. 1 and 2 in person.
versus
THE STATE & ORS ..... Respondent Represented by: Mr. Ashish Negi for Ms. Richa Kapoor, ASC for the State.
CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MUKTA GUPTA
O R D E R
% 17.09.2018
Respondent Nos. 5 to 8 are unserved due to incomplete address, however, learned counsel for the petitioners on instructions from the petitioners who are present in Court states that the petitioners are now in regular touch with respondent Nos. 5 to 8 and they do not wish to pursue the present writ petition. He thus seeks leave to withdraw the petition.
Petition is dismissed as withdrawn.
MUKTA GUPTA, J.
SEPTEMBER 17, 2018 ‘yo’
Rinki Kumari & Anr
The State & Ors
Mukta Gupta
As recorded by the court registry
A constitutional writ petition in a criminal context, most commonly habeas corpus or a challenge to an FIR or detention order.
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
