The Court held that the criminal writ petition became infructuous as two petitioners were exonerated. The petition was dismissed, and an interim order was extended as it remained operative for the remaining petitioners.
The criminal writ petition was dismissed; interim order continued until submission of chargesheet/final report.
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.454 OF 2014
Hon’ble U. C. Dhyani, J.
Mr. G. C. Lakhchaura, Advocate present for the petitioners.
Mr. S. S. Adhikari, Brief Holder present for the State.
It is stated by learned counsel for the State that the chargesheet has been filed against the petitioners no.1, 3 & 4, while the petitioners no.2 & 5 have been exonerated.
In view of the aforesaid statement of learned State counsel, the criminal writ petition has rendered infructuous and is dismissed as infructuous. Interim order dated 30.04.2014 shall continue to operate till the submission of the chargesheet / final report, as the case may be, against the petitioners before the court concerned and no further.
(U. C. Dhyani, J.)
Dated 24.04.2015
Rawat
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the criminal writ petition has become infructuous due to the exonerating of petitioners no.2 and 5.
Petitioners
State
U. C. Dhyani
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
