ANIL GIRIRAJ SON OF SHRI T GIRI RAJU v. STATE OF RAJASTHAN
CRLMP/47/2022 · 2025-01-02
Ashutosh Kumar
Public Interest Litigationbody2025
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2025 DAILYLAW 40737 (RAJ) · dailylaw.ai ]
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2025 DAILYLAW 40737 (RAJ) · dailylaw.ai ]
Judgment text
Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.
[2025:RJ-JP:194] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous (Petition) No. 47/2022
1. Anil Giriraj Son Of Shri T Giri Raju, Aged About 34 Years, Resident Of A-1101, Rohan Aakriti Apartment, Jayanagar Housing Society Layout, Subramanyapura, Kanakpura Road, Banglore, Karnataka, India.
2. Venu Gopal T Son Of Shri Govind Rao T, Aged About 29 Years, Resident Of A-1101, Rohan Aakriti Apartment, Jayanagar Housing Society Layout, Subramanyapura, Kanakpura Road, Banglore, Karnataka, India.
3. Rajat Son Of Shri P L Surendra Babu, Aged About 32 Years, Resident Of A-1101, Rohan Aakriti Apartment, Jayanagar Housing Society Layout, Subramanyapura, Kanakpura Road, Banglore, Karnataka, India.
4. Ankit Kumar Son Of Anil Kumar, Aged About 28 Years, Resident Of A-1101, Rohan Aakriti Apartment, Jayanagar Housing Society Layout, Subramanyapura, Kanakpura Road, Banglore, Karnataka, India. ----Petitioners Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through P.P., Jaipur.
2. Director General Of Police, Rajasthan, Jaipur, Rajasthan.
3. Asst. Commissioner Of Police, Malviya Nagar, Jaipur East, Jaipur, Rajasthan.
4. S.H.O (Station House Officer), Jawahar Circle Police Station, Jaipur, Rajasthan.
5. Ankit Meena S/o Ashok Kumar Meena, Aged About 26 Years, Resident Of A 21, JP Colony, Tonk Phatak, Bajaj Nagar, Jaipur, Rajasthan. ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Kapil Bhardwaj, Adv. for Mr. Abhimanyu Singh Yaduvanshi, Adv. For Respondent(s) : Mr. Rishiraj Singh Rathore, PP
[2025:RJ-JP:194] (2 of 2) [CRLMP-47/2022] HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHUTOSH KUMAR
Order 02/01/2025
1.
Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners submits that by efflux of time, this petition has become infructuous as the final report has been submitted before the concerned authority after investigation. Therefore, the same be
disposed of.
2. In that view of the matter, this petition is disposed of as having become infructuous.
3. Pending application(s) also stands disposed of.
(ASHUTOSH KUMAR),J Mohita /82