Allahabad High Court
NEERAJ JAIN AND 2 OTHERSversusSTATE OF U.P. AND 2 OTHERS
- Decided
Holding
The petition is dismissed as infructuous due to the lapse of time.
Summary
In Criminal Miscellaneous Writ Petition No. 7841 of 2022, petitioners Neeraj Jain and two others filed a petition against the State of Uttar Pradesh and two others. The petitioner's counsel, Sunil Kumar Yadav, was absent, and no interim relief had been ordered. The court observed that the petition had become infructuous due to the passage of time (eflux of time). Consequently, the High Court dismissed the petition as infructuous. No substantive merits of the petition were examined, and the case was closed without any order on the underlying criminal matters.
Issues considered
- The petition is maintainable despite the delay in filing?
- Whether the passage of time renders the writ petition infructuous?
Subjects
- writ petition
- criminal procedure
- infructuous
- delay
- dismissal
- High Court
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 7841 of 2022
Neeraj Jain And 2 Others
.....Petitioner(s)
Versus
State Of U.P. And 2 Others
.....Respondent(s)
Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Sunil Kumar Yadav
Counsel for Respondent(s) : Dharm Vir Singh, G.A.
Court No. - 44
HON'BLE SIDDHARTH, J.
HON'BLE VINAI KUMAR DWIVEDI, 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.
May 7, 2026
Abhishek
(Vinai Kumar Dwivedi,J.) (Siddharth,J.)
Digitally signed by :-
ABHISHEK YADAV
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…