The court dismissed the criminal miscellaneous petition for want of prosecution as no representation was made on behalf of the petitioner.
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.
N.C. No.2024:PHHC:040442
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
250
CRM-M-4963-2024 (O&M) Date of decision: 20.03.2024
VIJENDER ALIAS CHAUTALA
....Petitioner(s)
Versus
STATE OF HARYANA
...Respondent(s)
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIV BERRY
Present : None for the petitioner(s).
Mr. Pawan Kumar, DAG Haryana.
SANJIV BERRY. J. (Oral)
There is no representation on behalf of the petitioner. As such, the present petition stands dismissed for want of prosecution.
Pending applications, if any, shall also stand disposed of.
(SANJIV BERRY) JUDGE 20.03.2024 S.Sharma(syr) Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No Whether reportable : Yes/ No
SANDAL SHARMA 2024.03.21 18:44 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment
Vijender Alias Chautala
State of Haryana
Sanjiv Berry
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
