Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: SMT.ASHA ELIZABETH MATHEW
For the Respondents: SRI. M.S.BREEZ, SR. GP

The court dismisses the petition due to lack of prosecution, underlining the necessity of attention to procedural obligations.

Headnote:This judgment addresses the dismissal of WP

(C) No. 36528 of 2015 due to lack of instructions from the petitioner, leading to a conclusion that the case be dismissed for non-prosecution as noted in the court's observation. The court framed the issue around the non-prosecution and reflected on the legal implications of such a dismissal. Ultimately, the ruling confirms the dismissal of the case, emphasizing procedural compliance.

JUDGMENT

Dated this the 29^th day of January, 2026 The learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that there is no instructions from the party.

In the light of the above submission, the Criminal Miscellaneous Case is dismissed for non-prosecution.

Sd/-

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :