The Calcutta High Court clarified that a writ petition challenging an order under Section 144(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, may be dismissed as infructuous if, with the passage of time, the grievance raised does not survive. This clarification upholds prior precedent and confirms that courts can decline to entertain matters where the original dispute no longer has practical significance. The decision is binding on all subordinate courts in West Bengal.
Summary
| Category | Data |
|---|---|
| Case Name | WPA/1651/2020 of BUDDHADEV BASU Vs STATE OF WEST BENGAL & ORS |
| CNR | WBCHCA0048472020 |
| Date of Registration | 24-01-2020 |
| Decision Date | 01-09-2025 |
| Disposal Nature | DISMISSED |
| Judgment Author | HON’BLE JUSTICE PARTHA SARATHI CHATTERJEE |
| Court | Calcutta High Court |
| Precedent Value | Binding on subordinate courts in West Bengal |
| Type of Law | Criminal Procedural Law |
| Questions of Law | Whether a writ petition challenging an order under Section 144(2) CrPC can be entertained when the matter has become infructuous with passage of time. |
| Ratio Decidendi |
The writ petition was filed challenging an order passed under Section 144(2) CrPC by the Executive Magistrate. At the time of hearing, no one appeared for the petitioner. The court found that due to the lapse of time, the issue raised in the writ petition had become infructuous. Consequently, the court dismissed the writ petition as infructuous and did not pass any order as to costs. The decision reinforces the principle that writ petitions which have lost relevance on account of time are liable to be dismissed. |
| Facts as Summarised by the Court | The writ petition challenged an order dated 7th November 2019 passed by the Executive Magistrate under Section 144(2) CrPC. At the hearing, there was no appearance on behalf of the petitioner. |
Practical Impact
| Category | Impact |
|---|---|
| Binding On | All subordinate courts in West Bengal |
What’s New / What Lawyers Should Note
- Establishes that courts may summarily dismiss writ petitions as infructuous when the relief sought is rendered academic by passage of time.
- Clarifies that non-appearance by the petitioner may contribute to dismissal for infructuousness if no pressing cause remains.
- Reinforces that orders under Section 144(2) CrPC are of limited temporal application, reducing the need for belated judicial review.
Summary of Legal Reasoning
- The court noted the absence of the petitioner or counsel at the time of hearing, inferring an apparent lack of continued grievance or urgency.
- It was observed that the writ petition was premised on an order dated 7th November 2019 under Section 144(2) CrPC.
- By the date of consideration, the court held that the passage of time had rendered the matter infructuous, i.e., the circumstances justifying the original challenge no longer existed or remained relevant.
- On this basis, the writ petition was dismissed as infructuous without costs, confirming the court’s power and settled practice to decline academic or moot petitions.
Factual Background
The writ petition was filed to challenge an order dated 7th November 2019 passed by the Executive Magistrate under Section 144(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Upon listing for hearing, no one appeared on behalf of the petitioner. The court determined that with the passage of time, the issues raised had become irrelevant and the petition was dismissed as infructuous.
Statutory Analysis
- Section 144(2) CrPC was the provision under which the contested order was passed.
- The judgment implies that orders under this section are of short-term or preventive nature, and their legal vitality may dissipate over time, affecting the maintainability of related writ petitions.
Alert Indicators
- ✔ Precedent Followed – The judgment reaffirms existing practice regarding infructuous matters.