Court restored CRR 2521 of 2009 after allowing restoration applications. Petitioners subsequently filed instructions declining to proceed with the revision, leading to dismissal as not pressed.
Revisional application dismissed as not pressed; restoration orders allowed.
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.
22.07.2022 IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA Item No.32 CRIMINAL REVISIONAL JURISDICTION Ct.No.34 dc.
C.R.R. 2521 of 2009 with CRAN 3 of 2021 with CRAN 4 of 2022 with CRAN 5 of 2022 with CRAN 6 of 2022
Shelly Chakraborty & Anr. versus
The State of West Bengal & Anr.
In Re : An Application under Section 401 read with Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.
Mr. Ayan Basu, Mr. Debaki Nandan Maiti, Mr. Sumit Routh … For the Applicants/Petitioners.
Mr. Ranabir Roy Chowdhury, Mr. Sandip Chakraborty
… For the State.
Mr. Ayan Basu, learned advocate appears for the petitioners.
Mr. Sandip Chakraborty, learned advocate appears for the State.
This revisional application was dismissed for default on 01.09.2021. Subsequently the applications for restoration being CRAN 3 of 2021 and CRAN 4 of 2022 were taken out along with application for condonation of delay being CRAN 6 of 2022.
On consideration of the application for condonation of delay being CRAN 6 of 2022, this Court finds that the reasons for the delay in filing the application for restoration have been sufficiently explained. CRAN 6 of 2022, is, thus allowed.
2
After considering the averments made by the applicants/petitioners in the application for restoration being CRAN 4 of 2022, this Court holds that the reasons which prevented the petitioners from appearing before this Court on 01.09.2021 have been sufficiently explained. Accordingly, the prayer for restoration stands allowed. CRAN 4 of 2022, is, thus allowed.
Consequently the application being CRAN 3 of 2021 is disposed of.
Let the revisional application be restored to its original file and number.
Re: CRR 2521 of 2009
Mr. Basu, learned advocate for the petitioners submits written instructions wherein it has been stated that the petitioners are not inclined to proceed with the instant revisional application.
Accordingly, the revisional application being CRR 2521 of 2009 is dismissed as not pressed.
The application being CRAN 5 of 2022 is consequently disposed of.
Let the written instructions so submitted be kept on record.
All parties shall act on the server copy of this order duly downloaded from the official website of this Court.
(Tirthankar Ghosh, J.)
Shelly Chakraborty & Anr.
The State of West Bengal & Anr.
Tirthankar Ghosh
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
