Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Himachal Pradesh · body

2026 DAILYLAW 8871 (HP)

VEENA DEVI v. SANTOSH DEVI AND ANOTHER

CRMPM/738/2026 · 2026-05-14

Sandeep Sharma

body2026

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

Veena Devi v. Santosh Devi and Anr. Cr.MP(M) No. 738 of 2026 14.5.2026 Present: Ms. Sheetal Vyas, Advocate, for the applicant/petitioner. Mr. Rajan Kahol & Mr. Vishal Panwar, Additional Advocates General and Mr. Ravi Chauhan & Mr. Anish Banshtu, Deputy Advocates General, for non- applicant/respondent No.2/State. Cr.MP(M) No. 738 of 2026 For the reasons stated in the application, this Court is convinced and satisfied that delay in maintaining the accompanying appeal is neither intentional nor willful, rather same has occurred on account of circumstances, which were completely beyond the control of the applicant, as such, delay, which has been sufficiently explained, is condoned. The application is disposed of. Cr.Appeal No. of 2026 Be registered. Admit. Mr. Rajan Kahol, learned Additional Advocate General, waives post admission service on behalf of respondent No.2. Issue post admission notice to respondent No.1 returnable within six weeks, on taking steps within one week. List along with a case, detail of which, shall be furnished by learned counsel for the petitioner before the Registry. May 14, 2026 (Sandeep Sharma), manjit Judge