Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Uttarakhand · body

2025 DAILYLAW 3369 (UTT)

RAKESH TYAGI v. STATE OF UTTARAKHAND

WPCRL/162/2025 · 2025-08-11

Pankaj Purohit

body2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

SL. No Date Office Notes, reports, orders or proceedings or directions and Registrar’s order with Signatures COURT’S OR JUDGES’S ORDERS WPCRL No.162 of 2025 Hon’ble Pankaj Purohit, J. Mr. Anchit Khoker, Advocate for the petitioner. 2. Mr. B.C. Joshi, A.G.A. for the State. 3. Ms. Monika Pant, Advocate for respondent no.5, through video conferencing. 4. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner, seeking the following reliefs:- “i) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondent no.2 and 3 to conduct forensic examination. ii) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondent no.4 to provide forensic examination report to the petitioner.” 5. Learned State counsel has submitted that the forensic examination of the bills and voucher got conducted by the order of learned Sessions Judge and the examination report is already submitted to the court of Sessions. 6. This fact has been disclosed by the State in its counter affidavit. 7. In view of the statement made by State counsel the writ petition is rendered as infructuous, as the grievance of the petitioner has since been redressed. 8. It is also made clear that if the petitioner has got any reservation about the forensic examination report, he is free to file objection to the said report before the learned trial court. (Pankaj Purohit, J.) 11.08.2025 SK