Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)
CRR-194-2015 on 27 July, 2016
1 27.07.2016 Item No. 51 Court No.27 S.Mayra C.R.R 194 of 2015 In Re: Basudeb Dutta & Ors.
.....petitioners.
Mr. Debasis Roy Mr. S.A. Jamal Mr. Anindya Ghosh ....for the petitioners.
Mr. Manjit Singh Mr. Pawan Kumar Gupta Ms. Debjani Saha ....for the State Learned Counsel for the petitioners submits affidavit-of-service. Let it be kept with the record.
Mr. Gupta, learned Counsel appearing for the State is present with photo copy of Case Diary in connection with Serampore Police Station Case No. 275 of 2014 dated 15th May, 2014. Perused the same and returned to Mr. Gupta.
On perusal of the application it appears that seven petitioners pray for quashing of all further proceedings in connection with Serampore Police Station Case No. 275 of 2014 dated 15th May, 2014 under Sections 498A/406 of the Indian Penal Code. 1 2 Notice was served on the Opposite Party No.2, Devlina Dey (Som), who is the de facto complainant in the case under challenge but she did not appear despite repeated service of notice on her. During pendency of this case, the petitioners filed Supplementary Affidavit with certified copy of charge-sheet submitted in the Court below against the present petitioner Nos. 3,4 and 7 with prayer for discharge of the other petitioners who were also impleaded as accused in the Court below.
Learned Counsel for the petitioners submits that according to materials collected by the investigating police officer during investigation alleged occurrence did not take place within the jurisdiction of Serampore Court and as such the proceeding cannot be continued in Serampore Court. Learned Counsel for the State took me to the First Information Report where there is allegation that the de facto complainant was also abused in filthy language demanding more money from her at her father's house at Serampore.
Mr. Gupta submitted that there are prima facie materials in the Case Diary for continuation of the proceedings and he also submits that he has nothing to submit before this Court in this revisional application relating to prayer of the investigating police officer for discharge of four accused persons in the Court below.
2 3
Considering the materials collected by the investigating police officer during investigation, I am not satisfied to hold that there is no material for proceeding with the case in the Court below and I am also not satisfied to hold that the proceedings should be quashed by this Court by exercising inherent power of this Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.
However, I am not inclined to make any observation regarding merits of the case, which is pending in the Court below. Considering all aspects the revisional application stands dismissed.
Urgent Photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for, be given to the parties or their advocate on record expeditiously in compliance of usual formalities.
(Sankar Acharyya, J.) 3