The court dismissed a writ petition as infructuous after the State informed counsel that a charge sheet had been filed, with the petitioner reserving the right to challenge it in different proceedings.
The writ petition was dismissed as infructuous; interim orders (if any) were vacated.
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.
2026:UHC:757
| SL. No. |
Date | Office Notes, reports, orders or proceedings or directions and Registrar’s order with Signatures |
COURT’S OR JUDGE’S ORDERS |
|---|---|---|---|
| WPCRL No. 1095 of 2025 Hon'ble Rakesh Thapliyal, J. 1. Mr. Himanshu Pal, learned counsel for the petitioner. 2. Mr. G.S. Sandhu, learned Additional Advocate General with Mr. Himanshu Sain, learned Brief Holder for the State. 3. Learned State counsel apprise to this Court that after investigation now the charge sheet has been filed and as such the writ petition is infructuous. 4. Mr. Himanshu Pal, learned counsel for the petitioner have no objection on this even otherwise Mr. Himanshu Pal submits that he will challenge the charge sheet in a different proceedings. 5. In such view of the matter the instant writ petition is dismissed as infructuous. 6. The interim order, if any, shall stand vacated. |
|||
| (Rakesh Thapliyal, J.) 10.02.2026 Nahid |
2026:UHC:757
The Petitioner
The State
Rakesh Thapliyal
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
