Calcutta High Court
CRR/1690/2024 of DIPANNITA BHATTACHARYYA @ DIPANWITA BHATTACHARZEE AND ANOTHER Vs STATE OF WEST BENGAL AND ORS. on 2 September 2026
24 02/09/2026 Court No.42 S.Kundu CRR 1690 of 2024 With CRAN 2 of 2024 Smt. Dipannnita Bhattacharyya @ Dipanwita Bhattacharzee & Anr. Vs. State of West Bengal & Ors. Mr. Sabyasachi Mukherjee Mr. Kiran Mallick Mr. Tapan Jyoti Bose …for the petitioners. Ms. Faria Hossain Md. Ali
D/L – 24
02/09/2026
Court No.42
S.Kundu
CRR 1690 of 2024
With
CRAN 2 of 2024
Smt. Dipannnita Bhattacharyya @
Dipanwita Bhattacharzee & Anr.
Vs.
State of West Bengal & Ors.
Mr. Sabyasachi Mukherjee
Mr. Kiran Mallick
Mr. Tapan Jyoti Bose
…for the petitioners.
Ms. Faria Hossain
Md. Ali Ahasan
…for the O.P No. 4.
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
1. Learned counsel for the petitioners and learned counsel for the opposite party no. 4 submit that the instant criminal revisional application has been preferred challenging the proceeding arising out of the M.P Case No. 125 of 2024, under Section 107 of the Code of Criminal Procedure as well as the legality, correctness and propriety of the conditional orders dated 08.02.2024 and 22.03.2024 passed by the learned Executive Magistrate, Barrackpore in the said proceeding.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that it is matter of record that the said orders, being subject to the restricted statutory limitation of one year governing the said proceeding, were inherently temporary in nature and the statutory life of the aforesaid orders since have expired due to efflux of time, the subject- matter of challenge in the instant revisional application has become infructuous.
3. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner.
4. An order under Section 107 of the Code of Criminal Procedure ordinarily seems to have legal force for a
2 maximum period of one year from the date of passing of the order.
5. It is manifest from the record that the statutory force of the orders passed on 08.02.2024 and 22.03.2024 in the impugned proceeding have expired by 08.02.2025 and 22.03.2025 respectively due to efflux of time, consequently the subject matter of challenge has become redundant, thus rendering the present revisional application infructuous.
6. Proceeding with the merits of challenge against an order, the legal force of which has already expired, is an unnecessary exercise and would serve no fruitful purpose.
7. Accordingly, CRR 1690 of 2024 stands dismissed as become infructuous.
8. Connected application(s) is also dismissed.
9. Interim order, if any, stands vacated.
10. There shall be no order as to costs.
11. Urgent photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for, be given to the parties upon compliance with requisite formalities.
(Uday Kumar, J.)