Petitioners sought quashing of criminal proceedings but respondent No.2 was not forthcoming for compromise. Counsel sought withdrawal of the petition without prejudice; the High Court permitted withdrawal and disposed of pending 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.
$~102
THE STATE & ANR. .....Respondents Through: Ms.Manjeet Arya, APP for State with SI Mahendra Patel, P.S. Narela.
CORAM:
Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that since respondent No.2 is not forthcoming for quashing of proceedings, he may be permitted to withdraw the petition without prejudice to the rights and contentions of the petitioners.
Taking the statement of learned counsel for the petitioners on record, petition is accordingly disposed of. Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of.
ANOOP KUMAR MENDIRATTA, J
AUGUST 8, 2024/v
This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 13/08/2024 at 12:31:10
RAMESH KUMAR & ANR.
THE STATE
Respondent No.2 (not named in text)
ANOOP KUMAR MENDIRATTA
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
