KATHMANDU, MAY 22 The charges of organised crime and money laundering will be dropped against all defendants in Kaski's Suryadarshan Cooperatives case, including Rastriya Swatantra Party (RSP) Chairperson Rabi Lamichhane and absconding Gitendra Babu (GB) Rai. The Kaski District Court has granted permission to withdraw these two charges, in line with the petition filed by RSP Chair Lamichhane. A bench of Kaski District Court Judge Himlal Belbase issued the order today, approving the petitioner's request and ruling that only the charge of cooperative fraud will remain active. With this order, all defendants, including Lamichhane, have the opportunity to reach a settlement with the Suryadarshan Cooperative's victims. The court stated that issuing such an order would make it easier for the complainants and defendants to reach an agreement. 'In response to the petitioner's request, the original, supplementary and additional chargesheets related to the petition have been amended in accordance with Section 36 of the National Criminal Procedure Code, 2017. The charge of cooperative fraud remains active, while the other charges of organised crime and money laundering are dropped,' according to the court order. The court has also ordered that this ruling be treated as part of the case file and included in the Suryadarshan Cooperative fraud dossier. The order also states that the primary goal of adjudicating this case is to ensure the smooth and timely return of the savings deposits to the victim-complainants and that the government of Nepal did not initially include the charges currently being requested for amendment when the first chargesheet was filed. Initially, the lawsuit in the Suryadarshan Cooperative fraud case named GB Rai and others as defendants. At the time, no charges of organised crime or money laundering were brought against them. However, when it was decided to make Lamichhane a defendant as well, the previous chargesheet was amended at the direction of the then-government leadership, adding additional charges against Rai and others. On the same day that additional charges were brought against Rai's group, a lawsuit was filed against Lamichhane, making him a defendant in the money laundering and organised crime cases. The court determined that the complainants have no claims regarding these specific charges, and even after the amendment, the cooperative fraud charge remains active, according to the victims' original complaints. The court also stated that if the amendment is not made as requested, the process of settling between the complainants and defendants - and the smooth recovery of the victims' embezzled funds - will become even more complicated. Judge Belbase's order also states that no malice was detected in the prosecutor's request for amendment, and it demonstrates sensitivity to both parties' rights and interests - the complainants and the accused individuals. If charges of money laundering and organised crime are still active, a mutual settlement with cooperative victims is legally impossible. Lamichhane, realising that this would cause legal complications for him, filed a petition to amend the chargesheet during the previous government's tenure. Attorney General Sabita Bhandari Baral, appointed during Sushila Karki's tenure as prime minister, directed the government solicitors in the districts where Lamichhane is charged to amend the chargesheets in accordance with his request. However, a lawsuit challenging the decision has been filed in the Supreme Court. While some district courts waited for the Supreme Court's decision, the Kaski District Court went ahead and issued its decision while the case was still pending. Lamichhane was originally sued in the Suryadarshan Cooperative case. In this case, the court ordered Lamichhane to pay Rs 6.5 million in bail, and he was eventually released. Meanwhile, Chhabilal Joshi was released after paying a bail of Rs 8.8 million. With this court order, the proceedings against Lamichhane and other defendants will now focus solely on the fraud case under the Cooperatives Act. As a result, if the defendants want to return the depositors' money or reach a settlement, the legal path appears to be slightly easier. However, the court has made it clear that the main accusation and claim of 'cooperatives fraud' will stand.