25.8.2026 SL No. 27 Ct No. 42 SB CRR 1433 of 2024 Tota Sk & Anr. Vs. The State of West Bengal & Anr. Mr. Kallol Kr. Basu Md. Jannat Kr. Firdous … for the petitioners Mr. Ramashis Mukherjee Mr. Utsav Dutta … for the State Mr. Arnab Chatterjee Mr. Avik Ghosh … for the opposite party no. 2 1. Mr. Arnab Chatterjee, learned Counsel appearing for the opposite party no. 2 has brought to the notice of the Court the previous order dated August 13, 2026 wherein an inadvertent typographical error has cropped up in recording his appearance as well as that of Mr. Avik Ghosh, learned advocate as representing the ‘petitioners’ instead of the ‘opposite party no. 2’ and prays for rectification of such bona fide typographical mistake in the said order. 2. Department is directed is to carry out the aforesaid correction in the appearance portion of the said order dated August 13, 2026 to the extent as indicated above as well as in the certified copy of the said order, if already supplied to the parties, on production of the same. 3. Other portion of the said order shall remain unaltered. 4. Learned Counsel for the State files a report dated 18.8.2026 regarding service of information upon the petitioners by Officer-in-Charge, Bharatpur Police Station, Murshidabad Police District. Let the said report be taken on record. 2 5. On perusal of the said report, it appears that petitioners have already been informed by the jurisdictional police station. 6. Petitioners are represented by the learned counsel and the State is represented by Mr. Mukherjee. 7. This present criminal revisional application has been preferred by the petitioners under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. seeking quashing of an order dated 01.3.2023 passed by the 2nd Court of the learned Sessions Judge, Fast Track, Kandi, Murshidabad in connected criminal proceeding being Sessions Case No. 27 of 2022. 8. As submitted by the learned advocates for the parties and perused the impugned order by which the prayer of the petitioner made before the learned Trial Court that they shall be charged under Section 304 of IPC instead of Section 302 of IPC was heard and rejected and the learned Trial Court consequently proceeded for the framing of charge. At this stage, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners candidly submits that five prosecution witnesses have already been examined till now, thus makes the present revisional application infructuous at this stage. 9. In view of the aforesaid submission, I find that keeping this revision pending would not serve any fruitful purpose, it deserves to be dismissed as infructuous. 10. Accordingly, the criminal revisional application being CRR 1433 of 2024 is dismissed as infructuous. There shall be no order as to costs. 11. Interim order(s), if there be any, stand(s) vacated. 3 12. Urgent Photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for, be given to the parties upon completion of requisite formalities. (Uday Kumar, J.)