The Court held that a writ petition challenging a Section 144 CrPC order can be dismissed as infructuous due to passage of time. This affirms existing precedent regarding the discretionary power of courts to dismiss obsolete matters and has binding value within its jurisdiction for similar procedural circumstances.
Summary
| Category | Data |
|---|---|
| Case Name | WPA/1651/2020 of Buddha Dev 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 |
| Bench | Single Judge |
| Precedent Value | Binding within Calcutta High Court; persuasive otherwise |
| Type of Law | Criminal Procedural Law |
| Questions of Law | Whether a writ petition challenging a Section 144(2) CrPC order becomes infructuous with passage of time. |
| Ratio Decidendi |
The Court held that the writ petition, challenging an order under Section 144(2) CrPC, has become infructuous due to lapse of time. No argument or appearance was made in support when called on. The petition was dismissed with no order as to costs, reaffirming the power of the Court to dismiss petitions that no longer have live issues for adjudication. |
Practical Impact
| Category | Impact |
|---|---|
| Binding On | All subordinate courts within the jurisdiction of Calcutta High Court |
| Persuasive For | Other High Courts and legal fora across India |
What’s New / What Lawyers Should Note
- Reaffirms the court’s procedural discretion to dismiss a writ petition as infructuous if the issue has lost relevance due to passage of time.
- Highlights the importance for petitioners to maintain active prosecution of writs and appear when matters are called on for hearing.
- Absence of appearance and supervening events (such as expiration of the impugned Section 144 order) may be grounds for dismissal as infructuous.
Summary of Legal Reasoning
- The writ petitioner challenged an Executive Magistrate’s order under Section 144(2) CrPC.
- At the time of hearing, no counsel appeared for the petitioner.
- The Court determined, based on the lapse of time since the impugned order, that the writ had become infructuous.
- Accordingly, the writ petition was dismissed as infructuous, with no order as to costs.
- The decision is an application of settled legal practice allowing courts to dismiss matters where live controversies no longer exist.
Arguments by the Parties
No arguments are recorded in the judgment as no one appeared to support the writ petition when the matter was called on.
Factual Background
A writ petition was filed challenging an Executive Magistrate’s order dated 7th November 2019 passed under Section 144(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. When the matter was taken up by the Calcutta High Court, no one appeared for the petitioner. In view of the time elapsed since the impugned order and lack of appearance, the Court considered the matter infructuous and dismissed the petition.
Statutory Analysis
The judgment references Section 144(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. No further statutory interpretation or discussion is recorded in the judgment.
Dissenting / Concurring Opinion Summary
No concurring or dissenting opinions are reported in this judgment.
Procedural Innovations
No procedural innovations are mentioned in the judgment.
Alert Indicators
- ✔ Precedent Followed – The Court affirms the established practice of dismissing infructuous petitions where live issues no longer exist.
Citations
No external citations or report numbers are provided in the judgment.