Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)
Subhash Chandra Balasaria vs Unknown on 22 January, 2025
Author: Suvra Ghosh
Bench: Suvra Ghosh
39 22-01-2025
Ct. No.34 b.das CRR No. 105 of 2025 + CRAN 1 of 2025 In the matter of : Subhash Chandra Balasaria ..... petitioner. Mr. Sudipta Moitra Mr. Subhomoy Bhattacharya Mr. A. K. Mukherjee ...for the petitioner. Mr. Saryati Dutta Ms. Sreemoyi Roy ...for the State. Mr. Ankit Agarwal Mr. Nilay Sengupta Mr. Sujit Banerjee Mr. Subhajit Manna ...for the applicant/intervenor.
In Re: CRAN 1 of 2025 Heard learned counsels for the parties. The applicant/intervenor seeks to be added as a party to the revisional application since he is the de facto complainant in respect of the proceeding pending before the learned Trial Court and his presence is necessary for proper disposal of the revisional application.
Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant/de facto complainant filed an application before the learned Trial Court under Section 173 (8) of the Code of Criminal Procedure wherein he stated that the investigating officer did not make any attempt to collect 2 the voice sample of Sri Subhash Chandra Balasaria and Sri Sidharth Manot during investigation to establish their culpability in relation to the offence as alleged in the First Information Report. The application of the de facto complainant is allowed by the learned Trial Court by an order passed on 12th May, 2023, following which a prayer was submitted by the prosecution for taking the voice sample of the petitioner Subhash Chandra Balasaria in presence of the representative of CFSL. The said prayer was allowed by the order impugned Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that since the entire proceeding has not been challenged and the order impugned is not tenable in law, presence of the de facto complainant/applicant is not required in the present matter.
In my considered view, since the applicant is the de facto complainant of the case and the order impugned was passed on the prayer of the investigating officer pursuant to submission made by the de facto complainant before the learned Magistrate in the application under Section 173 (8) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the revisional application is required to be considered in presence of the applicant/de facto complainant, who is a necessary and proper party herein.
Accordingly, the application being CRAN 1 of 2025 is allowed.
3
The applicant/ de facto complainant be added as opposite party no.2 in the revisional application.
In Re: CRR 105 of 2025 The petitioner is directed to serve the application along with annexure thereto upon the 2 nd opposite party in course of this day.
Let the matter appear under the same heading on 27th January, 2025.
Urgent certified website copy of the order, if applied for, be given to the parties on compliance of requisite formalities.
( Suvra Ghosh, J. )