Sukdeb Mondal & Ors vs State Of West Bengal & Anr on 8 June, 2022

[Cites 2, Cited by 0]

Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)

Sukdeb Mondal & Ors vs State Of West Bengal & Anr on 8 June, 2022

Bench: Tirthankar Ghosh

08.06.2022               IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
Item No.12               CRIMINAL REVISIONAL JURISDICTION
Ct.No.34
   dc.
                               C.R.R. 1229 of 2021

                              Sukdeb Mondal & Ors.
                                        versus
                            State of West Bengal & Anr.

             In Re: An Application under Section 482 of the Code of
             Criminal Procedure.


             Mr. Kallol Basu,
             Mr. Ashim Kumar Chakraborty,
             Mr. Snehasis Jana            ... For the Petitioners.

             Mr. Bidyut Kumar Ray,
             Ms. Sima Biswas                 ... For the State.

             Mr. Tauhid Khan,
             Mr. Sirsendu Sinha Roy          ... For the Opposite Party No.2.



                   The present revisional application has been preferred

             challenging the order dated 18.03.2021 passed by learned

             Additional District and Sessions Judge, Ghatal in Criminal

             Revision No. 23 of 2017.

                   The genesis of the said order relates to an order dated

             04.07.2017 passed by learned Executive Magistrate, Ghatal

             in Misc. Case No. 82 of 2017 under Section 147 of the Code

             of Criminal Procedure.

                   Mr. Kallol Basu, learned advocate appearing for the

             petitioners submits that on certain false assertion, the

             learned Executive Magistrate on the basis of report submitted

             by the B.L&L.R.O. passed an order thereby giving a new right

             to the private opposite party which he was not entitled under

             the law. According to the learned advocate, the allegation of

             blocking the pathway is absolutely a false allegation and the
                           2




learned    Executive   Magistrate   without    resorting   to   any

evidence being adduced passed the impugned order only on

the basis of the report so submitted.

        Learned advocate appearing for the applicant/opposite

party no.2 vehemently opposes such contention of Mr. Basu

and submits that the applicants were using the said pathway

and the petitioners illegally restrained their free egress and

ingress and as such, having no other option, the applicants

resorted to such legal proceedings.

        In course of submissions advanced before this Court, it

was pointed out that civil case is pending between the parties

which     was   also   instituted   at   the   instance    of   the

applicant/opposite party no.2.

        Mr. Basu submits that the connected application for

injunction prayed for by the applicants was refused by the

learned civil court. However, the said factum was not brought

to the notice of the learned revisional court when such

hearing took place.

        I am of the view that right, title and interest are

absolute jurisdiction of the civil court and the Executive

Magistrate's order may be for the purposes of an interim

measure and cannot decide the absolute rights of the parties.

In view of the proceedings and orders of the civil court not

being brought to the notice of the revisional court, I am of the

opinion that the revisional court should freshly hear out the

revisional application after all the documents of the civil court
                             3




are placed before the revisional court. Accordingly, the order

dated 18.03.2021 is set aside.

      The learned Additional District and Sessions Judge,

Ghatal would rehear the Criminal Revision No. 23 of 2017.

      The parties are directed to be present before the

learned Additional District and Sessions Judge, Ghatal on

06.07.2022

at 10.30 a.m. In the meantime, the department is directed to communicate this order to the learned revisional court.

Both the parties would be granted 30 days' time for filing their fresh affidavit, if required.

The learned revisional court will continue the hearing by affording at least one date in each and every week. However, the hearing should be concluded by 31.08.2022 and the court would be at liberty thereafter to pass order.

With the aforesaid observations, the revisional application being CRR 1229 of 2021 is disposed of.

Interim order, if any, is hereby vacated. All pending connected applications, if any, are consequently disposed of.

All parties shall act on the server copy of this order duly downloaded from the official website of this Court.

Urgent photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for, be supplied to the parties upon compliance with all requisite formalities.

(Tirthankar Ghosh, J.)

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)