Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

A Division Bench for the hearing of applications relating to, or arising out of, proceedings in any subordinate Court (Civil, Criminal or Revenue) under Section 195 or Sections 340, 343 and 476, Criminal Procedure Code, shall consist of two Judges.

20. Let me now consider as to whether the aforesaid provision is attracted in the facts of the instant case or not?

In the instant case, the learned Trial Judge disposed of the opposite party's application under Section 340 read with Section 195(1)(b)(i) of the Code of Criminal Procedure by directing the opposite party (husband) to file certified copies of all the evidences on record as well as the documents referred to, in the said petition for sending them to the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, 24-Parganas (N), Barasat for enquiry under Section 340 of the Criminal Procedure Code as the learned Trial Judge is of the view that the complaint filed by the opposite party (husband) should be referred for enquiry to the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Barasat, 24-Parganas(N).

21. On perusal of the said order, this Court finds that though the learned Trial Judge was of the view that the complaint filed Dy the opposite party should be referred for enquiry to the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Barasat, 24-Parganas(N), but still then, the learned Trial Judge disposed of the said application without following any of the courses as provided in Clauses (a), (b), (c), (d) and (e) of Section 340(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

22. The opposite party, however, tried to impress upon this Court that the course as indicated in Section 340(1)(c) of the Criminal Procedure Code was followed, in this Case, but this Court cannot accept such submission of the opposite party as the learned Trial Judge, disposed of the said application under Section 340 without actually sending it to the Magistrate of the 1st Class having jurisdiction for further enquiry. The learned Trial Judge, in fact, disposed of the said application by giving direction upon the opposite party to file the requisite documents for sending them to the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Barasat and fixed another date for. passing further order.

24. Be that as it may, this Court has no Hesitation to hold that the impugned order was passed on an application filed by the opposite party under Section 340 read with Section 195 of the Criminal Procedure Code.

25. If that be so, then the only conclusion which can be arrived at by this Court that the present revisional application arises out of a proceeding under Section 340 of the Criminal Procedure Code and the impugned order was passed on an application filed by the opposite party which relates to a proceeding under Section 340 read with Section 195 of the Criminal Procedure Code.

26. In my view, a proceeding is initiated with the filing of an application. Thus, the said proceeding in which the Impugned order was passed by the learned Trial Judge was initiated by filing of such an application by the opposite party and the said order Is thus revisable only by a Division Bench consisting of two Judges of this Hon'ble Court as per the provision contained in Rule 10 of Chapter-II of the Appellate Side Rules.

27. Though it is true that all applications under Article 227 of the Constitution of India passed by any Judge in any civil suit and/or appeal, irrespective of its valuation is entertainable by a single Judge of this Court having jurisdiction, but the jurisdiction of the single Judge to entertain such an application which arises out of a proceeding under Section 340 and Section 195 of the Criminal Procedure Code, is ousted by the special provision contained in Rule 10 of Chapter-II of the Appellate Side Rules.