Petition Dismissed as Infructuous, with Liberty to Seek Appropriate Relief.

The petitioners invoked Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution and Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, seeking a declaration that the XLIX Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge and Special Court for NIA Cases lacked jurisdiction in Crime No. 63/2022, and seeking consequential relief.

During the hearing, counsel filed a memo of retirement for several petitioners; counsel for petitioner No. 129 separately stated that the petition’s relief had become infructuous and sought appropriate orders.

Whether the memo of retirement filed by counsel for the specified petitioners should be accepted.

Whether the petition should be dismissed in light of petitioner No. 129’s memo stating that the relief had become infructuous and seeking appropriate orders.

The petition invoked Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution and Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

The Court did not interpret or apply these provisions on the merits, and cited no precedent or substantive legal doctrine in its order.

The Court noted that the parties concerned had acknowledged counsel’s retirement and had taken the no-objection certificate and case papers; it therefore accepted the memo and permitted counsel to retire.

As to petitioner No. 129’s memo, the Court placed it on record and dismissed the petition with liberty as prayed for, without adjudicating the jurisdictional challenge or expressly determining its merits.

It placed petitioner No. 129’s memo on record and dismissed the writ petition with liberty as prayed for.