The High Court allowed the petitioner's prayer for withdrawal of Criminal Revisional Application No. 708 of 2020 and dismissed the same as withdrawn, directing the return of the case diary to the State counsel.
Prayer for withdrawal of the revisional application allowed; application dismissed as withdrawn; case diary returned to the State.
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.
22.08.2023 Sl. No.:13
Court No.30
CRR 708 of 2020
Nilanjana Dey vs. State of West Bengal
Mr. Rajiv Lochan Chakraborty Mr. Priyanjit Kundu
Mr. Joydeep Roy Ms. Puspita Saha Mr. Prantick Ghosh Mr. Siddhartha Sarkar
… for the petitioner ... for the State
… for the opposite party No.2 The opposite party no.2/the defacto complainant has filed supplementary affidavit stating therein that the deceased was a non-diabetic person.
At this stage, the petitioner files a written instruction stating that they do not want to proceed with the revisional application and pray for withdrawal of the case.
Considering the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner, the opposite party no.2 and the learned counsel for the State who has placed the case diary, the prayer of the petitioner is allowed.
The revisional application is dismissd as withdrawn.
The case diary be returned to the learned counsel for the State.
( Shampa Dutt (Paul), J. )
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the prayer for withdrawal of the revisional application is to be allowed.
Nilanjana Dey
State of West Bengal
opposite party No.2
Shampa Dutt (Paul), J.
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
