Petitioners withdrew their prayer for quashing criminal proceedings and sought to preponer the charge consideration hearing. The application was disposed as not pressed.
Application for quashing rejected as not pressed; charge hearing preponed to June 2021.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
09.03.2021 4 SB Ct. No.32
CRR 1673 of 2020
In the matter of : Gobindo Kumar Halder & Anr.
Mr. Ayan Bhattacharyya Mr. Saikat Chatterjee Ms. Manika Roy …. For the Petitioners Mr. Sudip Ghosh Mr. Apurba Kumar Datta …. For the State Mr. Dilip Kumar Mukherjee Mr. Lord Chatterjee …. For the O.P. No. 2
Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners submits that the petitioners would not like to press this application and would instead raise all the points taken up in this application before the learned trial Court at the time of consideration of charge. He also submits that a direction may be passed upon the learned Trial Court to prepone the date for consideration of charge from the month of November, 2021 to any earlier date.
Accordingly, the prayer for quashing of the impugned proceeding is rejected as not pressed.
However, the learned Trial Court is requested to prepone the next date for hearing on the question of charge to any date available in the month of June, 2021.
With these observations, the revisional application is disposed as not pressed.
Urgent photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for, is to be given to the parties upon usual undertakings.
(Jay Sengupta, J.)
2
Gobindo Kumar Halder & Anr.
The State
Jay Sengupta
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
