Court No. - 1
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 23949 of 2018 Petitioner :- Smt. Beena And Another Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Bhuvnesh Kumar Singh Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.
Hon'ble Ramesh Sinha,J. Hon'ble Dinesh Kumar Singh-I,J.
Crl. Misc. Correction Application No. 02 of 2018.
Heard Sri Bhuvnesh Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Ajay Kumar Srivastava, learned counsel for the respondent no.3 and Sri Amrit Raj Chaurasia, learned A.G.A. for the State.
The present correction application has been filed for correcting the order dated 30.8.2018 passed in the present petition.
Learned counsel for the applicant submits that due to typographical mistake inadvertently in the body and the prayer clause of the petition, the case crime number has wrongly been mentioned as case crime no. 569 of 2018 in place of 659 of 2018 though the same was correctly written at the top of page no. 5 of the writ petition.
Learned counsel for the private respondent no.3 has stated that he has filed caveat application on 2.8.2018 in the said case crime number and it appears to be a deliberate act on the part of the petitioner to change the crime number so that his caveat may not be marked. He submits that due to said mistake, he could not oppose the present petition at the time of its disposal on 30.8.2018.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has apologized for the mistake which has occurred in the petition and it is stated by him that it is not a deliberate one. He further states that he may be allowed to make necessary correction in the prayer of the writ petition.
Learned counsel for the private respondent has though opposed the prayer made in the correction application but could not mark any aspersion on the counsel for the petitioner for a deliberate mistake on its part.
Considering the facts and circumstances of the present case, the counsel of the petitioner has allowed to make necessary correction, however, as we have disposed of the present petition by the order 30.8.2018, we direct the investigating officer to conclude the investigation within six weeks from the date of production of certified copy of this order.
The petition is, accordingly, disposed of.
After passing of the above order, it has been pointed out by learned counsel for the respondent no. 3 that the prayer made in the present correction application is a defective one.
Learned counsel for the petitioners prays that the present correction application be dismissed as not pressed with liberty to file fresh correction application with better prayer.
Accordingly, the present correction application is dismissed as not pressed with a liberty to file fresh correction application along with same affidavit which has been filed in support of the present correction application after serving a copy of the same to the learned counsel for the respondent no. 3.
(Dinesh Kumar Singh-I, J.) (Ramesh Sinha, J.) Order Date :- 12.9.2018 JK Yadav