The Court dismissed a revisional application and a connected application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act because the petitioners did not press them, preferring to seek quashing of proceedings instead.
Application and connected application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act dismissed as not pressed.
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.
09.02.2021 Ct. No. 32 Sdas 15
C.R.R. No. 338 of 2021
with CRAN 1 of 2021
In Re : An application under Sections 397/401 read with Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
And
In Re : Nabanita Banerjee (Ghosh) & Anr. …… petitioners
Mr. Rabi Sankar Chattapadhyay Ms. Payel Shome Mr. Subhendu Dutta
… for the petitioners
Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners submits that the petitioners would not like to press these applications in which the accuseds/petitioners had challenged an order directing further investigation and would instead prefer an application for quashing of the proceeding.
On the prayer of the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners, the revisional application and the connected application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act are dismissed as not pressed.
Urgent photostat certified copy of the order, if applied for, be given to the parties, upon usual undertakings.
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Nabanita Banerjee (Ghosh) & Anr.
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
