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
7 paragraphs · 199 wordsSheel Nagu, Judge
Learned counsel for the rival parties are heard. This M. Cr. C. has been filed seeking correction of typographical error which has crept in the final order dated 30/08/2012 in M. Cr. C. No. 5464/ 2012 to the extent of correcting crime No. 431/2012 and name of Police Station-Ater to Crime No. 90/2012 and Police Station Dehat District Bhind respectively.
On perusal of the original file of M. Cr. C. 5464/2012 and charge-sheet filed along with present application by learned counsel for applicant, the contention of learned counsel for applicant appears to be correct.
Accordingly, this M. Cr. C. is allowed and final order dated 30/08/2012 passed in M. Cr. C. No. 5464/2012 stands corrected by substituting crime No. 90/2012 in place of crime No. 431/2012 and Police Station-Dehat District Bhind in place of Police Station Ater, District Bhind.
This order shall be read in conjunction with the final order dated 30/08/2012 in M. Cr. C. No. 5464/2012.
A copy of this order be kept in the original file of M. Cr. C. No. 5464/2012.
Accordingly, this M. Cr. C. stands allowed and disposed of. Certified copy as per rules.