This order dismisses a petition as infructuous because the petitioner was acquitted and sought withdrawal of the petition after the Special Judge ordered prosecution withdrawal and consent for withdrawal.
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.
$~9
R K SRIVASTAVA
..... Petitioner Represented by: Ms. Rebecca John, Sr. Adv. with Mr. Viresh Saharya, Mr. Harsh Bora, Mr. Akshat, Advs. versus
STATE THR. CBI ..... Respondent Represented by: Mr. Ripu Daman Bhardwaj, Spl. PP. CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MUKTA GUPTA
O R D E R % 10.01.2017
Learned senior counsel for the petitioner informs that on an application filed by the prosecution seeking withdrawal of the prosecution case against the petitioner R.K. Srivastava, the learned Special Judge vide order dated 8th November, 2016 has granted consent for withdrawal of the prosecution against him. Accordingly, he has been acquitted. Thus, she seeks leave to withdraw the present petition as the same has become infructuous.
Petition is dismissed as infructuous.
MUKTA GUPTA, J.
JANUARY 10, 2017 ‘ga’
R K Srivastava
State Thr. CBI
Mukta Gupta
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
