The court noted that a vakalatnama filed in a criminal miscellaneous case was wrongly attributed to a different case and permitted its withdrawal. The remaining petitions and applications were dismissed as withdrawn.
Vakalatnama permitted to be withdrawn to be filed in the proper petition.
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.
Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:AM UL YA
1")
investigating agency with liberty to challenge in case an order framing charge is passed against the petitioners.
Leave and liberty granted.
Petitions and applications are dismissed as withdrawn.
Ms. Vasundhara, Advocate appearing on behalf of Ms. Shradha Karol, Advocate submits that vakalatnama of Ms. Shradha Karol had been filed in the present case however, this is not her case.
it
A perusal of the vakalatnama filed by Ms. Shradha Karol, Advocate reveals that Cr1. M.C. No. 676/2017 has been wrongly noted in the vakalatnama for the reason the vakalatnama pertains to another case titled q.s Utpala Mukher fee & Anr. vs. State.
Ms. Shradha Karol, Advocate is permitted to withdraw the vakalatnama filed in this petition and file the same in the proper petition.
Jt MUKTA GUPTA, J.
APRIL 029 2018 'vn,
CRL.M.C. 676/2017 & W.P.(CRL) 2420/2016
Page 2 of 2
MUKTA GUPTA
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
