Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)
464/2014 on 10 March, 2014
Author: Tarun Kumar Gupta
Bench: Tarun Kumar Gupta
1 0.3.2014
.
p.b.
C.R.R. No.464 of 2014 Mr. Soumen Dutta.
.....For the petitioner.
In view of urgency pleaded by the ld. counsel for the petitioner, the matter is taken out of turn.
One Tridip Paul has filed this application u/s.483 of the Cr.P.C. praying for expeditious disposal of Contai P.S. Case No.233/1991 dated 3rd September, 1991 corresponding to G.R. Case No.689/1991 u/s.468/471/420 IPC pending in the court of Ld. J.M., 2nd Court, Contai.
It is the case of the petitioner that O.C. Contai, P.S. received a written complaint from the then ADSRO, Contai-I, that the stamp vendor Nanigopal Nandi of Ramnagar SRO was illegally using stamps as stamps of Rs.500/- by illegally forging stamps of Rs.100/-. This initiated said specific police case which culminated into filing of a charge sheet. It is the specific case of the present petitioner that present petitioner got some land measuring about 12 decimals in plot no.95, 24 decimals in plot no.207, 16 decimals in plot no.178 and 80 decimals in plot no.57 from one Dibakar Shaw through a deed and presented the same in the Sub-Registrar office.
It is further case that said deed was executed by vendor Dibakar Shaw and thereafter it was presented for registration and at that point of time said deed was seized in connection with the criminal case. It is his further case that heirs of Dibakar Shaw have filed one civil suit against the present petitioner over said 2 property denying petitioners title thereupon and that said deed which was half done and seized in connection with the specific police case was required to be produced in support of the defence of the present petitioner.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that though one application u/s.151 CPC was filed in said civil suit praying for stay of said civil suit till disposal of the criminal case but the same was rejected by the ld. trial court. Accordingly, he prays for issuing necessary direction to the criminal court concerned for early disposal of the criminal case so that the present petitioner may get back the deed in question which was seized in connection with the criminal case.
Admittedly, the present petitioner is neither a complainant nor an accused nor even a witness in the criminal case. As such, prima facie, he has no locus standi to move this application. It is true that in connection with the investigation of said criminal case one incomplete deed in his favour executed by one Dibakar Shaw was seized and his prayer for stay of the civil suit till disposal of the criminal case was rejected by the ld. civil court. Admittedly, the petitioner can ventilate his grievance against said order of rejection in proper forum. As the petitioner is not a party to the criminal case in question his present petition u/s.483 Cr.P.C. is a misconceived one.
Accordingly, this application is dismissed being misconceived. However, it appears that the criminal case was initiated in 1991 and that the charge sheet was filed long back and that the trial is still continuing. It is true that huge documents were seized in connection with said criminal case and 3 it is a special type of criminal case where said seized documents were required to be produced during trial.
Be that as it may, ld. trial court (J.M. 2nd Court, Contai) is requested to take all necessary steps for expeditious disposal of said criminal case preferably within a period of 12 months from the date of communication of the order.
Urgent photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for, shall be given to the parties as expeditiously as possible.
(Tarun Kumar Gupta, J.)