The Criminal Writ Petition was dismissed as infructuous because the Investigating Officer submitted a final report stating no case was made out against the applicant, thereby terminating the criminal proceedings.
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.
WPCRL no. 407 of 2013
Hon’ble U.C. Dhyani, J.
Mr. L.K. Tiwari, Advocate for the writ petitioner.
Mr. V.S. Pal, AGA for the respondent State.
Mr. Siddhartha Sah, Advocate for respondent no. 3.
Learned AGA stated that after completion of investigation, final report has been submitted by the Investigating Officer against the applicant, as no case is said to have been made out against him.
Certified copy of the order passed by learned Judicial Magistrate II, Dehradun has been filed to show that final report has also been accepted.
In view of said development, the criminal writ petition has rendered infructuous.
The same is, accordingly, dismissed as infructuous.
HN
writ petitioner
respondent State
respondent no. 3
U.C. Dhyani
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
