Satyabhama Das v. State
Case brief
What is this about?
In a CRLA filed under section 372 of Cr.P.C., the High Court of Orissa noted a defect in nomenclature persisting since 2014 and the petitioner's apparent lack of interest in prosecution. The petition was disposed of.
What did the court decide?
The petition was disposed of.
What the court decided
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
CRLLP No. 73 of 2013
Bibachha Baitharu
…. Petitioner
None -versus- State of Odisha …. Opp. Party CORAM: JUSTICE M.S.SAHOO ORDER 17.11.2023 Order No. Hybrid Mode 03 . 1. As per Stamp Reporting dated 6.9.2013, the correct nomenclature is CRLA under section 372 of Cr.P.C.
The said defect though pointed out since 26.03.2014, has not yet been removed after S.R. was made on 6.9.2014, apparently petitioner is not interested in prosecuting the matter.
The petition stands disposed of. ……………………… (M.S.Sahoo) Judge
dutta
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed Signed by: AJIT KUMAR DUTTA Designation: Secretary Reason: Authentication Location: ohc Date: 24-Nov-2023 14:30:11
Issues for consideration
2 issues framed by the court
whether the petition should be disposed of due to the defect in nomenclature and lack of prosecution interest.
what is the correct nomenclature under section 372 of Cr.P.C.
Parties & counsel
- petitioner
Bibachha Baitharu
- respondent
State of Odisha
Coram
M.S. Sahoo
Case details
As recorded by the court registry
Similar cases
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court