Disposed
Mamta v. the State & Ors.
Delhi HCCRL.REV.P./32/2014
Case brief
AI extract
What is this about?
Petition seeking framing of charges against Respondent No. 2 abated as infructuous upon the petitioner informing the court that the respondent had expired.
What the court decided
AI extract
¶1
$~24
¶2
- IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
¶3
- CRL.REV.P. 32/2014
¶4
MAMTA .....Petitioner Through: Petitioner (through VC)
¶5
versus
¶6
THE STATE & ORS. .....Respondent
¶7
Through: Ms. Richa Dhawan, APP for the State SI Himani, PS- Gandhi Nagar
¶8
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMIT MAHAJAN
¶9
O R D E R % 03.09.2025
¶10
- The petitioner appears through video-conference and informs that Respondent No. 2 has already expired.
¶11
- In view of the above, the present petition seeking framing of charges against Respondent No. 2 has thus become infructuous and is abated.
¶12
AMIT MAHAJAN, J
Parties & counsel
AI extract
- petitioner
Mamta
- respondent
The State
- respondent
Respondent No. 2
Coram
AI extract
Case details
As recorded by the court registry
Similar cases
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court