The Court disposed of a writ petition seeking quashing of criminal proceedings. The petition was dismissed on the grounds that it had become infructuous as one of the respondents had expired. This order did not examine the merits of the substantive criminal charges.
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 & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
238
CRWP No.583 of 2020 Date of decision:04.10.2021
Pinki
... Petitioner
Vs.
State of Punjab and others
... Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUVIR SEHGAL
Present:Mr. Mandeep Singla, Advocate, for the petitioner.
Mr. Prabhjot Singh Walia, AAG, Punjab.
None for respondent No.4.
SUVIR SEHGAL, J. (Oral)
Heard through video conferencing.
Instant petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India read with Section 482 Cr.P.C seeking quashing of the proceedings conducted under Sections 107/151 of Cr.P.C. vide general diary report No.034 dated 21.10.2019 and vide inquiry report No.511 dated 23.10.2019 by respondent No.3.
Counsel for the petitioner submits that the petition has been
rendered infructuous as respondent No.4 has expired.
Dismissed as having become infructuous.
(SUVIR SEHGAL) October 04, 2021 JUDGE savita
| Whether Speaking/Reasoned | Yes/No |
|---|---|
| Whether Reportable | Yes/No |
SAVITA KADIAN 2021.10.05 12:59 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court Chandigarh
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the petition seeking quashing of proceedings is rendered infructuous due to the expiration of a respondent.
4 provisions across 2 enactments
Pinki
State of Punjab
others
Suvir Sehgal
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
