Allahabad High Court
JAGPAL AND 3 OTHERSversusSTATE OF U.P. AND 2 OTHERS
- Decided
Holding
The writ petition is dismissed for want of prosecution.
Summary
A criminal miscellaneous writ petition (No. 20695 of 2026) was filed by Jagpal and three others against the State of U.P. and two others. The petitioners' counsel, Jitendra Kumar Yadav, failed to appear even after a revised call. Respondent counsel, including C.P. Pandey and the Additional Government Advocate, were present. The Court dismissed the petition for want of prosecution and ordered that any interim order previously granted stand vacated. The judgment was delivered by Hon'ble Justices Chandra Dhari Singh and Tarun Saxena on September 8, 2026.
Issues considered
- What is the appropriate course of action when a petitioner fails to appear for prosecution of a writ petition?
Subjects
- writ petition
- criminal miscellaneous
- dismissal for want of prosecution
- interim order vacated
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 20695 of 2026
Jagpal And 3 Others
.....Petitioner(s)
Versus
State Of U.P. And 2 Others
.....Respondent(s)
Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Jitendra Kumar Yadav
Counsel for Respondent(s) : Chandra Prakash Pandey, G.A.,
Saurabh Shukla
Court No. - 48
HON'BLE CHANDRA DHARI SINGH, J.
HON'BLE TARUN SAXENA, J.
1. None appeared on behalf of the petitioners even in the revised call.
2. Mr. C.P. Pandey, learned counsel for respondent no.3 and learned AGA
for the State are present.
3. Accordingly, the instant writ petition is dismissed for want of
prosecution.
4. Interim order, if any, shall stand vacated.
(Tarun Saxena,J.) (Chandra Dhari Singh,J.)
September 8, 2026
Atul
Digitally signed by :-
ATUL KUMAR SRIVASTAVA
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…