Dismissed
Sunita Rani v. State of Haryana and Anr.
Punjab & Haryana HCCRM-M/18318/2011
Case brief
from the order text
What is this about?
of 2011(O & M) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB…
What the court decided
AI extract
of 2011(O & M) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB…
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.
1
Criminal Misc.M-No.18318 of 2011(O & M)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
Criminal Misc.M-No.18318 of 2011(O & M) Date of Decision:29.08.2012
Sunita Rani
.....petitioner
Versus
State of Haryana & anr.
.....respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAMESHWAR SINGH MALIK
Present: None for the petitioner
RAMESHWAR SINGH MALIK J.(ORAL):
The petitioner has filed the instant petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing of Complaint Case No.189/17.09.2009 titled as Veena vs. Ram Pal Jaglan and anr. as well as the summoning order dated 01.05.2010, including the subsequent proceedings arising therefrom.
When this case came up for motion hearing, for the first time on 06.06.2011, it was adjourned on the request of learned counsel for the petitioner to 06.07.2011. On 06.07.2011, the following order was passed by this Court:
"Counsel for the petitioner is directed to place on record a copy of the statement made by the complainant at the preliminary stage to enable this court to fairly appreciate whether any offence on the basis of the preliminary evidence is made out against the petitioner.
Adjourned to 26.08.2011."
On the next date i.e.26.08.2011, learned counsel for the petitioner sought more time to comply with the above said order dated 06.07.2011 and on his request it was adjourned to 23.01.2012. Again, on 23.01.2012, the case was adjourned on the request of learned proxy
2
Criminal Misc.M-No.18318 of 2011(O & M)
counsel for 21.03.2012. On 21.03.2012, a written request was made and the case was adjourned to 14.05.2012. Similarly, on 14.05.2012, learned counsel for the petitioner sought yet another adjournment for complying with the order dated 06.07.2011 and on his request, the case was adjourned for today. Today, when the case was taken up for hearing, learned proxy counsel again sought time but the request was declined. Faced with that situation, he sought a pass over. Now, when the case is taken up for the second time, no one is present on behalf of the petitioner.
In view of the above, this Court is of the prima facie view that the petitioner is not interested in pursuing this petition. The case is pending at the motion hearing, for the last more than one year, wherein notice has not been issued. Neither the order dated 06.07.2011 has been complied with nor anybody is present to press this petition.
In view of the above, the instant petition is ordered to be dismissed as not pressed.
(RAMESHWAR SINGH MALIK) JUDGE
29.08.2012 neenu
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Sunita Rani
State of Haryana
Rameshwar Singh Malik
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court