Dismissed¶23

Dolly Khan v. Union of India and Others

Punjab & Haryana HC13 May 2025CWP/5036/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Bank account freeze/de-freeze; lien of Rs.5,350/- on account; directions of Cyber Crime Cell; respondents no.3 and 4-PNB; Union of India; writ under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India seeking mandamus; petitioner unrepresented and absent; case called twice; dismissal for want of prosecution; non-prosecution; Punjab and Haryana High Court; Kuldeep Tiwari, J.; decision dated 13.05.2025.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition is dismissed for want of prosecution: the petitioner appeared not interested in pursuing the matter, as no one caused appearance despite the case being called twice and most of her grievance (the de-freezing of the account) appears to have been redressed. ¶22

Dolly Khan Vs Union of India and Others — Writ and Judicial Review | Punjab & Haryana HC (2025)

¶1

108

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶3

CWP-5036-2024

¶4

Date of Decision : 13.05.2025

DOLLY KHAN

.....Petitioner

VERSUS

UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS .....Respondents

¶9

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KULDEEP TIWARI

¶10

Present : None for the petitioner.

¶11

Ms. Krishna Divyana, Sr. Panel Counsel, for the respondent no.1-UOI (through V.C.)

¶12

Ms.Manjari Joshi, Advocate for respondents no.3 and 4-PNB.

¶13

KULDEEP TIWARI, J.(Oral)

¶14

Through the instant writ petition filed under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India, a prayer is made for issuance of a mandamus upon the respondents to de-freeze the bank account of the present petitioner.

¶15

On the last date of hearing, i.e. 12.05.2025, it was informed to this Court that the account of the present petitioner has already been de-freezed, and is now operative since 27.03.2024, however, a lien has been marked on an amount of Rs.5,350/-, only, that too, on the directions of the Cyber Crime Cell.

¶16

On last date, since no one had caused appearance on behalf

¶17

DHARAM VIR 2025.05.14 10:49 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶18

CWP-5036-2024

¶19

-2-

¶20

of the present petitioner, the matter was adjourned for today, with a direction to be listed in the urgent list, and further observation was made that no request of adjournment shall be entertained on behalf of either of the parties.

¶21

Today, the case was called twice, however, no one has caused appearance on behalf of the petitioner.

¶22

It seems that the petitioner is not interested in pursuing the instant matter, as her most of the grievance seems to have been redressed.

¶23

Dismissed for want of prosecution.

¶24

May 13, 2 dharamvir	025	(KULDEEP TIWARI) JUDGE
	Whether speaking/reasoned.	: Yes/No
	Whether Reportable.	: Yes/No

¶25

DHARAM VIR 2025.05.14 10:49 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

Dolly Khan v. Union of India and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dolly Khan v. Union of India and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Harninder Kaur and Anr. Vs State of Punjab and Others

Sourabh Chhabra Vs State of Haryana and Anr.

PNB Metlife India Insurance Company Ltd. Vs Anita Rani and Another

Virender Vs State of Haryana and Ors.

Mohit Pratap Singh Vs Union of India and Others

Kirpal Singh Vs State Registrar Firms and Societies and Others