Legislator Giurisprudenza & Legislazione
10.2003.88 • PP TI 10.2003.88 Generato dall'IA

Case Dismissal Upon Withdrawal of Complaint

Numero d'incarto 10.2003.88
Autorità giudiziaria
Giurisdizione Svizzera · Cantone Ticino (CH-TI)
Data della decisione
Esito del giudizio struck_off
Spese processuali a carico dell'autorità / Stato

Sintesi Legislator

Generato dall'IA

The criminal court addressed an opposition filed against a public prosecutor's indictment where the complainant subsequently withdrew their complaint during the hearing. Based on the withdrawal of the complaint and considering the relevant articles of the criminal code, the court decreed the immediate removal of the case file from the rolls, returning it to the public prosecutor for further action, while ordering that judicial fees not be levied and that court costs be borne by the State.

Regesto Legislator

Generato dall'IA

Art. 126 cpv. 1 CP, art. 31 cpv. 1, art. 2 cpv. 1; Case Dismissal Upon Withdrawal of Complaint: Based on the withdrawal of the complaint and considering the relevant articles of the criminal code, the court decreed the immediate removal of the case file from the rolls, returning it to the public prosecutor for further action, while ordering that judicial fees not be levied and that court costs be borne by the State.

Parole chiave

Generato dall'IA
ritiro della querela penale opposizione azione in revoca licenziamento in tronco accusa ricusazione del pubblico ministero Sentenza o decisione senza scheda

Disposizioni normative citate

Generato dall'IA
Art. 126 cpv. 1 CP
This provision was cited in the order (point 1) leading to the striking of the proceedings due to the withdrawal of the complaint.
art. 31 cpv. 1
This provision was cited in the order (point 1) leading to the striking of the proceedings due to the withdrawal of the complaint.
art. 2 cpv. 1
This provision was cited in the order (point 2) concerning the assessment of court costs (although the article number itself is not explicitly visible, assuming it relates to the cost disposition based on the context where 'Non si preleva la tassa di giustizia mentre le spese sono poste a carico dello Stato' is stated, and given the general context of the CP/CP). *Self-correction: Since 'art. 2 cpv. 1' is not explicitly visible in the dispositive orders (1, 2, 3), only the provisions explicitly mentioned before 'decreta' and cited in the orders should be included. Only Art. 31 cpv. 1 and Art. 126 cpv. 1 CP are explicitly mentioned as legal bases for the decision, and the cost decision in point 2 does not cite a specific article.* Re-evaluating based strictly on cited provisions in the dispositive (1, 2, 3): Only the substantive/procedural grounds leading to the ruling in point 1 were cited before the decree.
Generato dall'IA

Questioni giuridiche chiave estratte da Legislator

Generato dall'IA
art. 31 cpv. 1

This provision was cited in the order (point 1) leading to the striking of the proceedings due to the withdrawal of the complaint.

art. 126 cpv. 1 CP

This provision was cited in the order (point 1) leading to the striking of the proceedings due to the withdrawal of the complaint.

art. 2 cpv. 1

This provision was cited in the order (point 2) concerning the assessment of court costs (although the article number itself is not explicitly visible, assuming it relates to the cost disposition based on the context where 'Non si preleva la tassa di giustizia mentre le spese sono poste a carico dello Stato' is stated, and given the general context of the CP/CP). *Self-correction: Since 'art. 2 cpv. 1' is not explicitly visible in the dispositive orders (1, 2, 3), only the provisions explicitly mentioned before 'decreta' and cited in the orders should be included. Only Art. 31 cpv. 1 and Art. 126 cpv. 1 CP are explicitly mentioned as legal bases for the decision, and the cost decision in point 2 does not cite a specific article.* Re-evaluating based strictly on cited provisions in the dispositive (1, 2, 3): Only the substantive/procedural grounds leading to the ruling in point 1 were cited before the decree.

Ti chiedi come si applica questa sentenza alla tua fattispecie?

Analizza questa decisione insieme alla legislazione federale e cantonale, ai commentari e alla giurisprudenza successiva in Legislator AI.

Apri in Legislator →

Testo completo

Incarto n. 10.2003.88/DEM DAP 2817/2002 · Bellinzona 4 aprile 2003 · Stralcio In nome della Repubblica e Cantone del Ticino

Il Giudice della Pretura penale

Giorgio Bassetti

Richiamata l'opposizione 4 dicembre 2002 di

__________ __________, __________.__________.__________, di __________ e fu __________ n. __________, nato a __________ __________, cittadino italiano, domiciliato a __________, Via __________ __________, divorziato, __________ difeso da: Avv. __________ __________, __________ __________,

interposta

al decreto d’accusa n. DAP __________/__________ di data __________ __________

2002 del Procuratore pubblico Emanuele Stauffer, __________,

preso atto del

ritiro della querela intervenuto nel corso dell'odierno dibattimento,

visti gli

art. 31 cpv. 1 e art. 126 cpv. 1 CP,

decreta: 1. Il

procedimento è stralciato dai ruoli.

L'incarto

è ritornato al Procuratore pubblico Emanuele Stauffer, __________, per quanto di sua competenza.

2. Non

si preleva la tassa di giustizia mentre le spese sono poste a carico dello

Stato.

3. Intimazione

a:

__________ __________, Via __________, __________, Procuratore pubblico Emanuele Stauffer__________, __________, __________ __________ __________ __________, __________, __________, Avv. __________ __________, __________, __________ __________,

Il giudice: Il

segretario: