The High Court permitted the petitioner to withdraw Cr.MMO No. 896 of 2024 and dismissed the petition as withdrawn along with any pending miscellaneous applications.
Permission granted to withdraw the petition; petition and pending miscellaneous applications dismissed.
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. 896 of 2024 Date of Decision: 16.09.2024 Narotam Ram and ors. ... petitioners Versus State of H.P and ors. ....Respondents Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rakesh Kainthla , Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the petitioners : Mr. Kamal Kant Chandel, Advocate. : For the respondents Ms. Ayushi Negi, Deputy Advocate General.
Rakesh Kainthla, Judge (oral)
After arguing the matter for some time, learned counsel of the petitioner seeks permission to withdraw the present petition. Permission granted.
( Rakesh Kainthla) Judge 16th September, 2024 (saurav pathania)
1
Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes.
Narotam Ram and ors.
State of H.P and ors.
Rakesh Kainthla
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
