Writ petition under Article 226 seeking quashing of FIR/proceedings; State reported a final report was filed after investigation, leaving nothing to decide; petition dismissed as infructuous with liberty to the informant to file a protest petition.
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.
| SL. No Date |
Office Notes, reports, orders or proceedings or directions and Registrar’s order with Signatures |
COURT’S OR JUDGES’S ORDERS |
|---|---|---|
| WPCRL No.1619 of 2021 Hon’ble Pankaj Purohit, J. Mr. Prabhakar Joshi, Advocate for the petitioner. 2. Mr. B.C. Joshi, A.G.A. along with Ms. S.B. Dobhal, B.H. for the State. |
||
| 3. Mr. Shivam Sharma, Advocate for respondent nos.4 and 5, through video conferencing. 4. Mr. Shakti Saurav Purohit, Advocate holding brief of Mr. Piyush Garg, Advocate for respondent no.6. 5. Learned State counsel submits that after investigation a final report has been submitted in the matter on 28.08.2023, therefore, nothing remains to be decided in the writ petition. 6. Submission of learned State counsel is not disputed by learned counsel for the petitioner. 7. In view of the statement so made by learned counsel for the State, the writ petition is dismissed as infructuous; however, it is made clear that the applicant, who is informant in the matter, may file a protest petition to the final report. |
||
| (Pankaj Purohit, J.) 10.03.2025 SK |
Petitioner (WPCRL No.1619 of 2021)
State
Respondent no.4
Respondent no.5
Respondent no.6
Pankaj Purohit
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
