Petitioner failed to appear with counsel. Single judge observed lack of interest and consequences of non-prosecution, leading to dismissal.
Petition dismissed for non-prosecution due to absence of counsel and lack of interest.
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 PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
Criminal Misc. No. M-29822 of 2008 (O&M) Date of decision: 20.07.2012.
Harinder Singh
..Petitioner
Versus
State of Punjab and another
..Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE DAYA CHAUDHARY
Present: None for the petitioner.
Mr. G.S. Brar, AAG, Punjab, for respondent No.1 – State.
Mr. Vinay Puri, Advocate, for respondent No.2.
Daya Chaudhary, J. (Oral)
Case is of the year 2008. Either counsel for the petitioner was not present on various dates or a request was made for adjournment. Today also, counsel for the petitioner is not present.
It appears that the counsel for the petitioner is not interested in arguments.
Dismissed for non-prosecution.
20.07.2012 neetu
(DAYA CHAUDHARY) JUDGE
Harinder Singh
State of Punjab
another
Daya Chaudhary
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
