Petition disposed as infructuous due to expiration of one petitioner and discharge of another. No substantive legal issue addressed.
Petition dismissed as infructuous.
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.
278 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
CRM-M-16465-2019 Date of Decision: 19.11.2024
RAJINDER PAL @ ANOTHER ... PETITIONER VS. STATE OF HARYANA .. RESPONDENT
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANOOP CHITKARA
Present: Mr. Sandep Kotla, Advocate for the petitioners.
Mr. Aashish Bishnoi, DAG, Haryana.
ANOOP CHITKARA, J.(ORAL)
At the very outset, learned counsel for the petitioners submits
that petitioner No.1 has expired and petitioner No.2 has been discharged.
Learned State counsel has not disputed such statement.
Given above, the present petition is disposed of as having been
rendered infructuous.
19.11.2024 (ANOOP CHITKARA ) smriti JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No Whether Reportable : Yes/No
SMRITI 2024.11.20 09:57 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment
Rajinder Pal @ Another
State of Haryana
Anoop Chitkara
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
