Meghalaya High Court
Crl.Petn./102/2023 of GAZAL MISHRA Vs THE STATE OF MEGHALAYA AND ANR. on 30 November 2023
of 2 Serial No.01 Regular List HIGH COURT OF MEGHALAYA AT SHILLONG Crl. Petn. No. 102 of 2023 Date of Order: 30.11.2023 ____________________________________________________________ Smti. Gazal Mishra. Vs. State of Meghalaya & Anr. Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice B. Bhattacharjee, Judge
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
HIGH COURT OF MEGHALAYAAT SHILLONG
Crl. Petn. No. 102 of 2023 Date of Order: 30.11.2023
____________________________________________________________
Smti. Gazal Mishra. Vs.
State of Meghalaya & Anr.
Coram:
Hon’ble Mr. Justice B. Bhattacharjee, Judge Appearance:
For the Petitioner/Appellant(s) : None. For the Respondent(s) : Mr. R. Gurung, GA. with Mr. J. Thabah, GA.
Ms. S. Shyam, GA. (R: - 1)
ORAL:-
None appears for the petitioner.
Mr. R. Gurung, learned GA is present on behalf of the State- respondent No.1.
The case record reveals that the present matter was initially listed for motion on 12-09-2023 when none appeared for the petitioner and the matter was ordered to be listed after two weeks.
On 28-09-2023, the petitioner’s Counsel appeared and after hearing him notice was issued to the respondent whereupon it was ordered that petitioner shall take steps for service of notice upon the respondent No.2 within two days, however, the petitioner failed to take any steps for service of notice upon the respondent No.2.
On 18-10-2023 when the matter was listed before this Court again nobody appeared for the petitioner and the matter was adjourned for two weeks. By the same order, it was reiterated that petitioner shall take steps for service of notice upon the respondent No.2 within two days. It seems thereafter also petitioner failed to take any steps for service of notice upon the respondent No.2.
On 14-11-2023 when the matter was taken up, Mr. P. K. Garodia, learned counsel for the petitioner appeared before this Court and submitted that due to some difficulty, steps for service of notice could not be taken and prayed for grant of some more time. The prayer of the petitioner was allowed and the petitioner was granted 24 hours’ time to take steps for service of notice upon the respondent No.2.
Today also when the matter was called out none appeared for the petitioner.
Office-Note dated 29-11-2023 reveals that till date petitioner has not taken any steps for service of notice upon the respondent No.2.
It appears from the above that the petitioner is not interested in pursuing the matter.
Accordingly, the matter stands dismissed for non-prosecution.
Judge
Meghalaya30.11.2023“Biswarup PS”