Amit Kumar v. State Of Haryana And ANR

-1CRM-M-8314 of 2017

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA

AT CHANDIGARH CRM-M-8314 of 2017 Date of Decision: 11.03.2019 Amit Kumar

...Petitioner

Versus

The State of Haryana and another ....Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAMENDRA JAIN Present:- Mr. Abhinav Aggarwal, Advocate, for Mr. Kulwant Singh, Advocate, for the petitioner.

Mr. Ashok Muthreja, DAG, Haryana.

Mr. Manoj Tanwar, Advocate, for respondent No.2.

RAMENDRA JAIN, J. (ORAL) Written request for adjournment has been circulated by learned counsel for the petitioner on the ground that he is out of station on account of marriage of a close relative. This request cannot be entertained in view of order of the Hon'ble Supreme Court dated 07.02.2019 passed in Civil Appeal Nos.9142-9144 of 2010 (Ram Siromani Tripathi and others v. State of U.T. and others). Hence, the same is rejected. Perusal of file shows that on the previous date also, written request for adjournment was circulated by learned counsel for the petitioner. Therefore, it can safely be inferred that petitioner or his counsel is no more interested in pursuing the instant petition.

Learned counsel for respondent No.2 drawing attention of this RAVINDER SINGH 2019.03.16 11:47 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

-2CRM-M-8314 of 2017 Court to order dated 31.10.2017 contends that instant petition is not maintainable in view of the fact that petitioner has been given liberty to raise all the pleas, which he has raised in the instant petition at the time of framing of charge.

In view of above, petition is dismissed for want of prosecution. (RAMENDRA JAIN) March 11, 2019 JUDGE R.S.

Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No Whether Reportable Yes/No RAVINDER SINGH 2019.03.16 11:47 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document