AAMIR AHMAD KHAN v. UNION TERRITORY THROUGH POLICE STATION BATAMALOO (POLICE / HOME)
CRM(M)/725/2025 · 2026-03-09
Rahul Bharti
body2025
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2025 DAILYLAW 516 (JK) · dailylaw.ai ]
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2025 DAILYLAW 516 (JK) · dailylaw.ai ]
Judgment text
Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.
Serial No.06 REGULAR CAUSE LIST IN THE HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH AT SRINAGAR CRM(M) 725/2025 CrlM(1807/2025) Aamir Ahmad Khan …Petitioner(s)
Through: Mr. Mohammad Rafiq, Advocate vice Mr. Naveed Naseem, Advocate Vs. Union Territory Through SHO Police Station Batamaloo. ...Respondent(s) Through:
CORAM:
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAHUL BHARTI, JUDGE
ORDER 09.03.2026
1. Ever since this case was instituted by the petitioner through Advocate Mr. Naveed Naseem, the learned Advocate has not bothered to cause appearance, as the only appearance in the case was on 21.11.2025 through proxy counsel Mr. Mohammad Rafiq and, thereafter, for last two consecutive dates of hearing the counsel for the petitioner was not present and today also is the same scenario except that on his behalf Mr. Mohammad Rafiq, Advocate as proxy counsel is making a repeat request for adjournment.
2. Dismissed for non-prosecution.
(RAHUL BHARTI)
JUDGE
SRINAGAR: 09.03.2026
“Mir Arif”