On default appearance of applicants despite revised call, the High Court dismissed the application under Section 482 Cr.P.C.
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.
C-482 no. 1100 of 2013
Hon’ble U.C. Dhyani, J.
None present for the applicants, even in the revised call.
Mr. Hari Om Bhakuni, AGA with Mr. Rakesh Kunwar, Brief Holder present for the State / respondent no. 1.
Mr. Abhishek Verma, Advocate present for respondent no. 2.
The application under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. is dismissed in default of the applicants.
(U.C. Dhyani, J.) 24.03.2014
HN
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Applicants
State
Respondent no. 2
U.C. Dhyani
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
