The High Court affirmed the petitioner’s right to withdraw a criminal revision petition before final adjudication, without addressing any substantive legal question. The judgment does not create or overrule precedent, and its practical utility is limited to procedural withdrawal of pending petitions.
Summary
| Category | Data |
|---|---|
| Case Name | CR.R/250/2014 of BACHITTER SINGH Vs STATE OF HP |
| CNR | HPHC010238952014 |
| Date of Registration | 09-09-2014 |
| Decision Date | 28-10-2025 |
| Disposal Nature | Dismissed as withdrawn |
| Judgment Author | Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rakesh Kainthla |
| Court | High Court of Himachal Pradesh |
| Precedent Value | Limited (procedural withdrawal; no adjudication on merits) |
Practical Impact
| Category | Impact |
|---|---|
| Binding On | N/A (as no substantive legal issue decided) |
| Persuasive For | N/A |
What’s New / What Lawyers Should Note
- The High Court permitted withdrawal of the criminal revision petition upon a request from the petitioner’s counsel before any merits were addressed.
- No substantive or procedural guidelines were established in the course of this withdrawal.
Summary of Legal Reasoning
- The judge recorded the petitioner’s request to withdraw the revision petition, which was made by counsel on instructions.
- Accordingly, the petition was dismissed as withdrawn, together with any pending miscellaneous applications.
- The judgment does not discuss or analyze any substantive or procedural legal issue.
Arguments by the Parties
Petitioner
- Expressed, through counsel acting with instructions, the intention to withdraw the present criminal revision petition at the current stage.
Respondent
- No submissions on merits or substantive arguments recorded in the judgment.
Factual Background
- The record reflects that the petitioners had filed a criminal revision petition before the High Court of Himachal Pradesh.
- At the listed hearing, counsel for the petitioners, under instructions, sought to withdraw the petition.
- The court acceded to this request and ordered dismissal of the petition as withdrawn, including any pending miscellaneous applications.
Statutory Analysis
The judgment does not analyze or interpret any statutory provision.
Dissenting / Concurring Opinion Summary
The matter was decided by a single judge; no dissenting or concurring opinions are recorded.
Procedural Innovations
No procedural innovations or new guidelines are articulated in the judgment.
Alert Indicators
- ✔ Precedent Followed – Case disposed as withdrawn in accordance with established procedure.