The criminal writ petition was dismissed by this court as infructuous on the stated ground that the investigation was completed and a charge-sheet was filed against the petitioners. No substantive legal principles were applied.
The writ petition was 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.
WPCRL No. 428 of 2014
U.C. Dhyani, J.
Mr. M.K. Goyal, Advocate for the writ petitioners.
Mr. V.K. Gemini, Dy. Advocate General with Ms. Geeta Parihar, Brief Holder for the respondent State.
Learned Dy. Advocate General for the State submitted that after completion of investigation, charge-sheet has been filed against the writ petitioners.
In view of the above statement, criminal writ petition has become infructuous.
The same is, accordingly, dismissed as infructuous.
(U.C. Dhyani, J.) 22.12.2014
HN
Writ petitioners
respondent State
U.C. Dhyani, J.
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
