The petitioner abandoned the copyright writ petition by stating the FIR was registered. The court disposed of the petition as not pressed.
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.
WP(CRL) NO.05 of 2017
BEFORE
THE HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. T. VAIPHEI HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE S. TALAPATRA
Present:
For the petitioner : Mr. D. Sarkar, Advocate.
For the respondents : Mr. S. Sarkar, Public Prosecutor. Mr. P. Roy Barman, Advocate. Mr. Samarjit Bhattacharjee, Advocate.
07.11.2017.
Heard Mr. D. Sarkar, the learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. S. Sarkar, the learned Public Prosecutor and Mr. P.R. Barman, the learned counsel for the respondents No.5 & 6.
It is stated by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the FIR has now been registered and as such, the petitioner does not wish to press this writ petition.
Resultantly, the writ petition stands disposed of as not pressed.
JUDGE CHIEF JUSTICE
Dipesh
WP(CRL) NO.05 of 2017 Page 1 of 1
Petitioner
Respondents
T. Vaiphei
S. Talapatra
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
