Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)
Bubai Biswas @ Rahul Dutta vs The State Of West Bengal & Anr on 9 December, 2014
Author: Ashim Kumar Roy
Bench: Ashim Kumar Roy
1
Form No.J.(1)
In the High Court at Calcutta
(Criminal Revisional Jurisdiction)
Appellate Side
Present:
The Hon'ble Justice Ashim Kumar Roy
C.R.R. No.3414 of 2014
Bubai Biswas @ Rahul Dutta
-Vs-
The State of West Bengal & Anr.
For the Petitioner: Mr. Suman Das Adhikary.
For the opposite parties: None.
Heard on : 14-11-2014.
Judgment on : 09.12.2014.
Ashim Kumar Roy, J.
The petitioner, who has been facing his trial before the learned Additional District & Sessions Judge, 7th Court at Barasat, North 24-Parganas in connection with S.T.No. 01(11)/2013 on a charge under Sections 376(1)/328/506/509 IPC, has approached this Court for quashing of the trial proceedings.
It is an admitted position that not only the trial has commenced but by now, two witnesses have already been examined - one witness has been examined in full and another partially.
Now, quashing has been sought for by the petitioner on the ground that the complainant of the FIR, which has culminated to the 2 impugned trial proceeding, in her complaint referred an incident in which this accused person/petitioner contacted her daughter over Mobile and gave her some indecent proposals and also tried to blackmail her.
According to the learned advocate of the petitioner over the fact of contacting the daughter of the complainant over mobile phone by the petitioner, a separate case has been registered.
He further contended since the incident of the case in hand and the case which was registered on the basis of the FIR lodged by the daughter of the complainant are arising out of the self-same transactions, the impugned trial proceeding being an occurrence which took place in the initial stage of the transactions, cannot be the subject matter of another trial.
Now, considering the FIR, out of which the present trial proceeding started, it is found that according to the de facto complainant after enjoying her sexually, the petitioner demanded to develop sexual physical relation with her daughter and started blackmailing her and when her daughter came to learn about that, she lodged a complaint to the police station and such complaint gave rise to another FIR. Therefore, the allegation on which the mother lodged the complaint and another FIR has been lodged by the daughter are completely distinct and different one, has no connection with the other. It, thus, cannot be accepted that both the incidents are arising out of the 3 self-same transactions. The petitioner has been charged in the present trial under sections 376(1)/328/506/509 IPC, whereas on the basis of the complaint lodged by the daughter, the FIR under sections 354A/509 IPC has been registered, the victims are different. While one incident took place during September/October, 2012, the other incident took place in April, 2013. The contention of the learned counsel of the petitioner is totally without any substance and no force. Thus, the question of impugned trial proceeding of such submissions does not at all arise. Furthermore, the recording of evidence has already commenced in connection with the trial in question.
This criminal revision has no merit and accordingly stands dismissed.
The trial court is directed to proceed with the trial in the light of mandate of proviso to section 309 CrPC.
Office is directed to communicate this order to the opposite party No.2 at her address mentioned in the cause title of this application as also to the court below at once.
Urgent Photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for, be given to the parties at an early date.
( Ashim Kumar Roy, J. ) 4