The court held that, in light of the State’s reply outlining numerous cases against a petitioner and their family, a criminal writ petition may be voluntarily not pressed by the petitioner. Such an order is purely procedural and carries no binding or persuasive precedential value for substantive legal questions. No new legal principles are articulated or prior law addressed.
Summary
| Category | Data |
|---|---|
| Case Name | CRWP/17/2025 of VEERO DEVI Vs STATE OF HP AND ANR |
| CNR | HPHC010495752025 |
| Date of Registration | 14-08-2025 |
| Decision Date | 15-10-2025 |
| Disposal Nature | Disposed Off |
| Judgment Author | HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE GURMEET SINGH SANDHAWALIA |
| Concurring or Dissenting Judges | HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE JIYA LAL BHARDWAJ (concurring) |
| Court | High Court of Himachal Pradesh |
| Bench | Division Bench: Chief Justice G.S. Sandhawalia & Justice Jiya Lal Bhardwaj |
| Precedent Value | No precedential value on substantive law; procedural disposal only |
| Type of Law | Criminal Procedure |
| Ratio Decidendi |
The petition was dismissed as not pressed after the State’s reply indicated multiple cases were pending against the petitioner and family members; petitioner’s counsel did not press the petition. The decision does not address any substantive legal issue or principle. The order is purely procedural in nature. |
| Facts as Summarised by the Court | The State filed a reply enumerating the number of cases pending against the petitioner and family; upon this, the petitioner chose not to press the petition, leading to its dismissal. |
Practical Impact
| Category | Impact |
|---|---|
| Binding On | None — No statement of substantive law or principle. |
| Persuasive For | None — Not persuasive for similar or other cases. |
What’s New / What Lawyers Should Note
- The judgment is a standard order where a criminal writ petition was dismissed as “not pressed” after the petitioner’s counsel withdrew in response to the State’s reply detailing pending cases.
- No legal principle, ratio, or substantive interpretation is laid down.
- Such orders have no precedential or persuasive value and cannot be cited as authority on substantive law or procedure.
- Lawyers should note that withdrawal or non-pressing of petitions after adverse replies is a procedural closure, not a decision on merits.
Summary of Legal Reasoning
- Upon consideration of the State’s reply — which gave details of pending cases against the petitioner and family members — counsel for the petitioner stated the petition was not pressed.
- The court recorded this statement and dismissed the petition as not pressed.
- No question of law was considered, and no interpretation or discussion of statutes or precedents was undertaken.
Arguments by the Parties
Petitioner
- Learned counsel for the petitioner, after seeing the reply of the State detailing cases against the petitioner and family, did not press the writ petition.
Respondent (State)
- Filed a reply providing information regarding the number of pending cases against the petitioner and her family members.
Factual Background
The petitioner filed a criminal writ petition before the High Court of Himachal Pradesh. The State responded by filing a reply listing the number of criminal cases pending against the petitioner and her family. After considering this reply, counsel for the petitioner stated the petition would not be pressed, resulting in the court dismissing it as such.
Statutory Analysis
No statutory provisions were interpreted, discussed, or applied in the judgment. The order is procedural in nature.
Dissenting / Concurring Opinion Summary
No dissenting or separate concurring opinions are recorded; both judges concurred in dismissing the petition as not pressed.
Alert Indicators
- ✔ Precedent Followed – No departure from, nor creation, modification, or overruling of, substantive precedent; the order simply follows established practice of dismissing matters as not pressed when the petitioner withdraws.