Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)
Bhabani Prasad Chatterjee vs Unknown on 5 June, 2015
Author: Shib Sadhan Sadhu
Bench: Shib Sadhan Sadhu
1 05.06.201526
m.b C.R.R. 852 of 2013 With C.R.A.N. 996 of 2015 In Re.: An application for recalling the order dated 26th March, 2013.
And In the matter of: Bhabani Prasad Chatterjee ....petitioner Mr. Tapas Bhanga, Mr. Kamal Kanta Kar ..........for the petitioner Mr. Amarta Ghose ...........for the State In Re.: C.R.A.N. 996 of 2015 This application has been filed for restoration of the original revisional application by recalling the order dated 26th March, 2013 passed by this Court.
By the aforesaid order, this Court dismissed the revisional application for default.
Having heard the learned advocates appearing for the parties and going through the averments made in the application for restoration, I am satisfied that sufficient reasons have been furnished for recalling the order dated 26th March, 2013 so that the matter can be decided on merits.
2Therefore, the order dated 26th March, 2013 passed by this Court stands recalled and the revisional application is restored to its original file and number.
This application thus stands allowed.
In Re.: C.R.R. 852 of 2013 This application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 has been filed by the petitioner for quashing of the proceedings of G.R. Case No. 1010 of 2012 arising out of Chhatna Police Station Case No. 126 of 2012 pending before the Court of the learned Judicial Magistrate, 5th Court, Bankura.
The factual matrix leading to the filing of the instant revisional application is that there was an incident between the parties on 11.10.2012 for which a case and a counter-case were started. In terms of the First Information Report of the G.R. Case No. 1010 of 2012, on 11.10.2012 at about 2.00 p.m., when earth was being excavated for construction of a road, the present petitioner interrupted and abused the labourers. At that time, the son of the de facto complainant was coming along with that road. The accused/petitioner then abused him. On hearing hue and cry, the de facto complainant rushed there. The accused/petitioner attacked the de facto complainant and fell her down catching her hair, pulled her sari, torn her blouse, kicked her and snatched her earrings. On the basis of such complaint, Chhatna Police Station 3 Case No. 126 of 12 under Sections 341/323/325/354/506 of the Indian Penal Code was registered. The case was investigated into and on completion of investigation, chargesheet was submitted against the present petitioner under Sections 341/323/325/354/506 /34 of the Indian Penal Code.
Over the selfsame incident, the present petitioner also lodged a written complaint alleging that on 11.10.2012 at about 3.00 p.m., the opposite parties physically assaulted him with iron rod and bamboo sticks. As a result, the petitioner sustained injuries and his neck was cracked and he was admitted in hospital. Over that complaint, Chhatna Police Station Case No. 125 of 2012 under Sections 143/341/323/325/506 of the Indian Penal Code was registered.
The grounds for preferring the instant revisional application are that the learned Magistrate erred in law by entertaining the First Formation Report against the present petitioner and that he acted with material irregularity by not considering the fact that the Chhatna Police Station Case No. 125 of 2012 was filed first by the present petitioner while the Chhatna Police Station Case No. 126 of 2012 was filed by the opposite parties later on and that the allegations made by the opposite parties against the present petitioner are false and fabricated.
4
I am at a loss how such application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure could be filed for quashing of the proceeding on such a flimsy ground. It cannot be a ground for quashing of a proceeding only because there is another case arising out of the same incident. Be that as it may, the case has been investigated into and chargesheet has been submitted. Therefore, a prima facie case has well been established against the present petitioner and he has no other option but to face the trial. He can very well agitate his defence, if any, before the learned Trial Court.
I find no merit in the revisional application and the same is dismissed accordingly without, however, any order as to costs.
Urgent photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for, be given to the learned advocates for the parties upon compliance of all necessary formalities.
(Shib Sadhan Sadhu, J.)