D/L – 46 18/08/2026 Court No.42 S.Kundu CRR 1692 of 2024 Dipannita Bhattacharyya @ Dipanwita Bahttacharzee & Anr. Vs. State of West Bengal & Ors. Mr. Sabyasachi Mukherjee Mr. Ranabir Halder Ms. Debjani Chakraborty …for the petitioners. Ms. Faria Hossain Md. Ali Ahasan …for the private opposite party. 1. Learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned counsel for the opposite parties are present. This matter is taken up today for final hearing and disposal. 2. The instant revisional application has been preferred by the petitioners Smt. Dipannita Bhattacharya and Smt. Ritashree Maitra seeking the quashing of the entire proceeding being M.P. Case No. 460 of 2024 initiated under Section 144(2) of the Cr.P.C., 1973, pending before the Court of the Learned Executive Magistrate, Barrackpore. 3. The said impugned proceedings were initiated upon an application filed by the Opposite Party/private respondents namely Smt. Mira Kar, Jayanta Kar, Chandan Kar and Archan Kar. The impugned order was passed on 08.02.2024, which forms the sole subject matter of challenge in this revision. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that any order passed under Section 144(2) of Cr.P.C. cannot legally 2 extend beyond a maximum period of 6 months. The prescribed period since has already elapsed, its legal force and efficacy has already expired, rendering the present application completely infructuous. 5. Significantly, the learned counsel for the opposite party submitted ad idem „identically‟, concurring fully with the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioners. 6. To properly appreciate the controversy, it is imperative to examine the mandate of Section 144 of Cr.P.C., which governs the issuance of urgent orders in cases of nuisance or apprehended danger. 7. Section 144(4) of Cr.P.C. explicitly provides that “No order under this Section shall remain in force for more than two months from the making thereof: Provided that, if the State Government considers it necessary so to do for preventing danger to human life, health or safety or for preventing a riot or any affray, it may, by notification, direct that an order made by a Magistrate under this section shall remain in force for such further period not exceeding six months from the date on which the order made by the Magistrate would have, but for such order, expired, as it may specify in the said notification”. 8. A combined reading of the statutory framework reveals that while an initial order remains in force for up to two months, even under an extended direction by the State 3 Government; in no event can an order under Section 144 of Cr.P.C. remain effective beyond an absolute ceiling period of 6 months. 9. In the case at hand, it transpires from the materials on record that an impugned order was passed on 08.02.2024. At best, the said order could remain valid up to 08.08.2024. Thereafter, the law does not recognize the order as effective due to the lapse of the maximum 6 months‟ statutory threshold. 10. Challenging an order or proceeding for quashing in a revision that has already become redundant and devoid of force is legally untenable and serves no practical purpose, the underlying order since has already lapsed by operation of law, the entire revisional application has been rendered infructuous. 11. In view of the above concurrent submissions, the relevant provisions of the Cr.P.C. and the efflux of time, this revisional application is dismissed as infructuous. 12. Any interim order, if operating, stands vacated. 13. Urgent photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for, be given to the parties upon compliance with requisite formalities. (Uday Kumar, J.)