Petitioner sought quashing of order rejecting his application to extend time for depositing amount. Court kept order in abeyance until deadline, granting de facto relief while reserving liberty.
Impugned order kept in abeyance until 22.9.2017 with provision for revival; liberty reserved for further application to lower court.
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.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA.
Cr.MMO No. 365 of 2017 Decided on: 22.9.2017
| Dinesh Kumar | Versus | …Petitioner. |
|---|---|---|
| Suresh Kumar _________________ |
__________________ | …Respondent. ______________________ |
Coram:
Hon’ble Mr. Justice Tarlok Singh Chauhan, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the Petitioner : Mr. G. R. Palsra, Advocate. For the respondent : None. _________________________________________________________
Justice Tarlok Singh Chauhan, Judge (oral):
By medium of this petition, under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the petitioner appears to be aggrieved by the order dated 13.9.2017 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge-I, Mandi, District Mandi, H.P. in Cr.M.A. No. 133 of 2017 (for short impugned order) whereby his application for extension of time to deposit the amount upto 22.9.2017 has been rejected.
1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? yes
2
Copy dasti.
(Tarlok Singh Chauhan), Judge.
22.9.2017 GR
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the impugned order rejecting the application for extension of time to deposit the amount should be quashed or kept in abeyance.
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Dinesh Kumar
Suresh Kumar
Tarlok Singh Chauhan
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
