Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Himachal Pradesh · body

2025 DAILYLAW 30071 (HP)

LEKH RAJ v. STATE OF HP

CR.R/490/2022 · 2025-11-20

Sushil Kukreja

body2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

( 2025:HHC:39281 ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA Cr. Revision No.490 of 2022 Date of decision: 20.11.2025 Lekh raj ….petitioner Versus State of H.P. ….respondent Coram: The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sushil Kukreja, J. Whether approved for reporting ?1 For the applicant/petitioner: Mr. Ajay Kochhar, Senior Advocate with Mr. Bhairav Gupta, Advocate. For the respondent: Mr. Manoj Chauhan, Mr. Amandeep Sharma, Additional Advocates General with Mr.Ankush Thakur and Mr. Balvinder Singh Ballu, Deputy Advocates General. Sushil Kukreja, Judge(Oral): On 04.11.2025, a report has been received from the Court of Special Judge, Kullu,H.P, wherein, it has been mentioned as under:- “It is, further submitted that a supplementary challan-2 against Lekh Raj @ Bittu has been filed on 24.03.2025 and as per supplementary challan-2 filed, no evidence has been found against the suspect Lekh Raj alias Bittu during the investigation. In the absence of evidence in the charge, no crime is being proved against the suspect Lekh Raj alias Bittu. But due to suspicious circumstances, the suspect Lekh Raj has been kept in Section No. 12 of supplementary challan. Therefore, the case file titled as Lekh Raj vs State of 1 Whether the reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgement? 2 ( 2025:HHC:39281 ) H.P has been listed on 23.08.2025 with main case file titled as State of H.P vs Khimi Ram @ Kewalu and others.” 2. At this stage, it is stated by leaned counsel for the petitioner that in view of the report received from the Court of learned Special Judge, Kullu, District Kullu, H.P., wherein, it has been mentioned that no evidence has been found against the petitioner Lekh Raj, but due to suspicious circumstances, his name has been kept in Column 12 of Supplementary challan, he does not want to press the present revision petition. 3. In view of the aforesaid statement of learned counsel for the petitioner, the present revision petition is dismissed as not pressed. 4. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of. ( Sushil Kukreja ) Judge November 20, 2025 (reena)