Back
IN THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) (ITANAGAR BENCH)
BUDI HABUNG, J.
Koi Taipodia, Son of Late Duko Taipodia - Appellant
Versus
The State of AP and Ors - Respondents
CRP 47 of 2025
Decided On : 19-05-2025
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. correction of petition type and index error. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. court allows amendments to filings. (Para 3 , 4) |
| 3. future listing post amendments. (Para 5) |
JUDGMENT :
BUDI HABUNG, J.
1. Mr. R. Nabam, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that inadvertently this petition has been mentioned as CRP resulting in registration as CRP/47/2025, however, the petition was intended to be filed as a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, therefore, prays for allowing him to correct the CRP into writ petition.
2. The learned counsel for the petitioner also submits that there is also some error in the index and page no. 1 of the cause title and prays for allowing him to correct the same as well.
3. The prayer is considered and allowed.
4. The petitioner may amend the cause title and, on such amendment, the Registry shall do the needful and re-register by converting the CRP into writ petition under 226 of the constitution of India.
5. Let this matter be listed after making the necessary amendment of the cause title as stated above.
A party may seek to amend the cause title of a petition to correct inadvertent errors, allowing for proper classification under Article 226 of the Constitution.
A petition may be withdrawn with permission if there is no objection from the opposing party and the applicant may pursue further recourse under Article 227 of the Constitution.
The aggrieved party should approach the Judicial Magistrate under Section 156 Cr.P.C before filing a Writ Petition under Section 226 of the Constitution of India.
Petitioner allowed to withdraw writ petition with liberty to file a fresh petition.
The court emphasized the necessity for legitimate grounds before police registration of a crime based on complaints submitted, allowing for further recourse to a Magistrate if dissatisfied.
A petition challenging the Roznama of a quasi-judicial authority is not maintainable under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
A writ petition under Article 226 becomes infructuous when the relief sought is no longer relevant or necessary.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
