Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)
No.08 Sahanawaj Tarafdar vs The State Of West Bengal & Anr on 15 March, 2016
1
C.R.R. 233 OF 2015
5.03.16.
b
. No.08 Sahanawaj Tarafdar
Vs
The State of West Bengal & Anr.
Mr. Manjit Singh (PP)
Mr. Pawan Kumar Gupta
... For the State.
Again no one appears for the petitioner when the matter is called on for hearing.
Mr. Singh, learned Public Prosecutor is present in Court and he assists this Court for disposal of this case on merit.
This revisional application under Section 401 read with Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure has been filed by the petitioner Sahanawaj Tarafdar challenging legality, propriety and correctness of the impugned order dated 5th January, 2015 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, 2nd Court at Barasat in Complaint Case No. C-8486 of 2014 under Section 344 of the Indian Penal Code read with Section 97 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Sum and substance of the revisional application is that the opposite party no. 2 Salima Bibi lodged a complaint in the Court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Barasat and that case is now pending before the learned Judicial Magistrate, 2nd Court at Barasat as the case was transferred to the Court of learned Judicial Magistratge after taking cognizance. By the impugned order the said transferee Court examined the complainant and her witness on S/A. On perusal of the petition of complaint and application under Section 97 of the Code of Criminal Procedure order was passed for issuing summons against the present petitioner as accused. Simultaneously considering the age of the female child of the complainant in that case as three years learned Judicial Magistrate, 2nd Court at Barasat allowed the 2 application under Section 97 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for issuance of search warrant for search in the house of the present petitioner. Said orders have been challenged in this revisional application. A certified copy of the petition of complaint and separate certified copy of the application under Section 97 of the Code of Criminal Procedure have been annexed to the revisional application.
Having gone through the said petition of complaint and the application under Section 97 of the Code of Criminal Procedure I find from the face of it that prima facie case for issuing process against the present petitioner under Section 344 of the Indian Penal Code was made out and prayer of the complainant for recovery of her minor daughter aged about three years from the custody of the present petitioner issuing search warrant under Section 97 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is based on reasoning. I do not find prima facie material from the very face of the petition of complaint and the application under Section 97 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to hold the impugned order as illegal or improper or incorrect. As such I find no merit in this revisional application.
Accordingly, the revisional application is dismissed as devoid as merit. Urgent photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for, shall be supplied to the learned Counsel for the parties as expeditiously as possible, in compliance of usual formalities.
(Sankar Acharyya, J.)