Where a criminal revision is dismissed as infructuous following withdrawal of the underlying proceedings, the judgment does not decide any substantive question of law and does not add to or change existing precedent. Such decisions are of no binding or persuasive authority on legal questions for future cases.
Summary
| Category | Data |
|---|---|
| Case Name | CRR/686/2024 of AMRITA DAS PATTANAYAK (NEE BAG) Vs SANJIB DAS PATTANAYAK |
| CNR | WBCHCA0082552024 |
| Date of Registration | 16-02-2024 |
| Decision Date | 29-10-2025 |
| Disposal Nature | DISMISSED AS WITHDRAWN |
| Judgment Author | HON’BLE JUSTICE BIBHAS RANJAN DE |
Practical Impact
| Category | Impact |
|---|---|
| Binding On | None |
| Persuasive For | None |
What’s New / What Lawyers Should Note
- The High Court dismissed the revision as infructuous, as the underlying proceeding had already been withdrawn before the subordinate magistrate.
- No substantive legal issue or principle was adjudicated.
- Such dismissals do not create any binding or persuasive authority and are irrelevant for citation on legal propositions.
Summary of Legal Reasoning
- Both counsels informed the Court that the proceeding in question had already been withdrawn and the Learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate had dismissed it as withdrawn.
- The Court took the certified copy of the order of withdrawal on record.
- On this basis, the High Court held the revision application to be infructuous and dismissed it accordingly.
- No legal question was addressed or decided, and no reasoning on the merits of the dispute was provided.
Arguments by the Parties
Petitioner
- Submitted that the proceeding which was the subject of the revision application had already been withdrawn.
Respondent
- Concurred that the proceeding before the subordinate magistrate had been withdrawn and endorsed dismissal as infructuous.
Factual Background
Both parties attended before the High Court. Their counsels confirmed that the criminal proceeding underlying CRR 686 of 2024 had already been withdrawn before the Learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, who dismissed it as withdrawn. The High Court noted the certified copy of this withdrawal order and, accordingly, found the present revision to be infructuous.
Statutory Analysis
No statutory provisions were analyzed or interpreted in the order. The Court proceeded solely on the basis of the factual withdrawal of the proceeding.
Dissenting / Concurring Opinion Summary
No dissenting or concurring opinions are recorded in the judgment.
Procedural Innovations
No procedural precedents or innovations were set by this order.
Alert Indicators
- ✔ Precedent Followed – The Court followed existing procedure in dismissing the revision as infructuous due to withdrawal of the underlying proceeding. No substantive precedent was set or changed.