AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
No AI summary yet
Generate an eight-section analysis of this judgment — facts, issues, reasoning, ratio and a plain-language gist.
Judgment
8 paragraphs · 302 wordsSavitri Ratho, J
This Revision has been filed challenging the order dated 09.11.2023 passed in CT Case No. 281 of 2018 by the learned J.M.F.C., Jaipatna refusing to discharge the petitioner from the offences under Sections 403, 406, 409 and 420 of the IPC.
On 15.03.2024 when the matter was listed as Mr. S. Ghosh, learned counsel had appeared on behalf of opposite parties no.2 and 3 waiving notice. In view of nature of allegations against the petitioner, this Court thought it fit that an attempt should be made for settling the dispute between the parties amicably for which the matter had been adjourned to 02.04.2024. On 02.04.2024, Mr. M.K. Mohapatro, learned counsel for the petitioner prayed for an adjournment stating that he had not received any instructions from the petitioner. As prior intimation had not been given to Mr. S. Ghosh, learned counsel of opposite parties no.2 and 3 who had come from Calcutta, adjournment had been granted till today subject to payment of cost of Rs.2500/- to the opposite party no.2 through his counsel Mr. Ghosh by 12.04.2024. It is stated at the Bar that the cost has already been paid on 16.04.2024 which is after the date fixed by this Court.
Today when the matter is listed, Mr. Mohapatro, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that he want to withdraw the CRLREV as per the instructions received from the petitioner. He files a memo stating that “the aforementioned case may kindly be permitted to withdraw as per instruction received from the petitioner.” The said memo is kept on record.
Considering the said submission, the CRLREV is dismissed as withdrawn.
A copy of this order be sent to the learned J.M.F.C., Jaipatna.
Urgent certified copy of this order be granted on proper application.
..…………………………….