Aparna Tripathi vs. State Of Bihar And Anr

Facts

The petitioner, Aparna Tripathi, filed a Criminal Revision application before the Patna High Court. This revision was against an order dismissing her Criminal Appeal. The dismissed Criminal Appeal was itself preferred against an interim order passed in a Domestic Violence Case. The opposite party no. 2 is Gyanendra Kumar Tripathi, and the State of Bihar is the other opposite party. The Court had previously directed the lower court to dispose of the Domestic Violence Case within 45 days. The parties agreed that the Domestic Violence Case has now been finally decided, and the petitioner has filed a Criminal Appeal against that final order. The interim order, against which the petitioner had initially filed an appeal, has merged with the final order of the Domestic Violence Case.

Held

The Court held that the present Criminal Revision application has become infructuous. This is because the Domestic Violence Case, which had an interim order that formed the basis of the petitioner's earlier appeal, has now been finally decided. The petitioner has subsequently filed a Criminal Appeal against the final order of the Domestic Violence Case. Consequently, the interim order has merged with the final order. Since the subject matter of the revision (the interim order) has merged into the final order and a separate appeal is pending against the final order, the revision application is no longer relevant or maintainable. The Court found no dispute between the parties on this point. Therefore, the revision application was dismissed as having become infructuous.

Key Issues

1. Whether the present Criminal Revision application has become infructuous due to the final disposal of the Domestic Violence Case and the subsequent filing of a Criminal Appeal against the final order, thereby rendering the interim order merged with the final order? (Question of law) Petitioner's arguments: The petitioner, appearing in person, did not explicitly argue any points. However, the context suggests the revision was filed against an order dismissing an appeal against an interim order. Opposite Party No. 2's arguments: Ms. Soni Srivastava, learned senior counsel for Opposite Party No. 2, along with Mr. Kamlesh Kumar Singh, Advocate, did not present any specific arguments in the provided text. However, the judgment indicates an agreement between the parties. State's arguments: Md. Fahimuddin, learned APP for the State, did not present any specific arguments in the provided text.