Allahabad High Court
SUNEETA PATELversusSTATE OF U.P. AND 2 OTHERS
- Decided
Holding
The petition is dismissed as infructuous because it has become stale due to the lapse of time.
Summary
Petitioner Suneeta Patel filed a criminal miscellaneous writ petition before the Allahabad High Court. The petitioner’s counsel was absent and no interim order had been passed. The court observed that the petition had become stale due to the passage of time. Consequently, the court held that the petition was infructuous. The petition was therefore dismissed.
Issues considered
- Whether the writ petition is maintainable despite lapse of time
Subjects
- writ petition
- lapse of time
- infructuous
- stale petition
- high court
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 18882 of 2025
Suneeta Patel
.....Petitioner(s)
Versus
State Of U.P. And 2 Others
.....Respondent(s)
Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Arshad Hamid, Zaid Arshad
Counsel for Respondent(s) : G.A.
Court No. - 44
HON'BLE SIDDHARTH, J.
HON'BLE SATYA VEER SINGH, J.
1. Case is called out.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner is not present.
3. There was no interim order passed in this case.
4. The petition appears to have infructuous by eflux of time, it, is
accordingly dismissed as infructuous.
(Satya Veer Singh,J.) (Siddharth,J.)
April 20, 2026
sailesh
Digitally signed by :-
SAILESH PRAJAPATI
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…