Petitioners challenged a Family Court order rejecting an application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. The High Court held that a prior order (RPFAM No.275 of 2018) removed the legal impediment, dispensing with further orders and disposing of the matter.
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.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
RPFAM No.292 of 2022
Ranjeeta Digal and others
…. Petitioners Mr. Jagannath Bhuyan, Advocate
-versus-
…. Opp. Party Mr.Debidutta Mohapatra, Advocate on behalf of Mr. Ramdas Achary, Advocate
Jagabandhu Digal
CORAM:
JUSTICE K.R. MOHAPATRA
ORDER
Order No.
06.12.2022
and order dated 3rd August, 2022 (Annexure-2) passed by learned Judge, Family Court, Phulbani in Criminal Proceeding No.27 of 2018, whereby he rejected an application to proceed with an application filed under Section 128 Cr.P.C. in terms of the ratio in Asian Resurfacing of Road Agency Private Limited and another Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation , reported in (2018) 16 SCC 299.
(K.R. Mohapatra)
s.s.satapathy
Judge
Page 1 of 1
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Asian Resurfacing of Road Agency Private Limited and another Vs. Central Bureau of InvestigationExplained¶15
Asian Resurfacing of Road Agency Private Limited and another Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation, (2018) 16 SCC 299 · Who else cites this
Ranjeeta Digal and others
Jagabandhu Digal
K.R. Mohapatra
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
