Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

1. This petition is the fourth episode of a seemingly unending saga. The petitioner's wife applied under Section 156(3) of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (the Code) alleging that the petitioner had committed rape on her. After commitment the matter was set down for trial in the Court of the Additional Sessions Judge, Diamond Harbour. The petitioner applied under Section 407 read with Section 482 of the Code before this Court. The proceedings were not quashed in exercise of powers under Section 482 of the Code but "the matter was transferred to the Court of Additional District and Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court at Baruipur. Such order came to be made on the petitioner claiming that it would be inconvenient for him to attend the distant Diamond Harbour Court and on the basis of his apprehension for his security in Diamond Harbour. By the order of transfer of February 13, 2007, this Court required the recording of evidence to be taken up on March 17, 2007.

2. On April 2, 2007, the petitioner applied, again under Section 407 read with Section 482 of the Code, alleging misconduct on the part of the presiding officer at the time that the matter was taken up on March 17, 2007. The petitioner complained of the manner in which evidence was received by the trial Court and of the petitioner's application under Section 231 of the Code, for deferring the cross-examination of his wife, not being considered. The petitioner referred to acrimonious exchanges in Court on March 17, 2007 and March 19, 2007 and expressed lack of confidence in the presiding officer and his apprehension that he would be denied a fair trial. The petitioner claimed that the petitioner was directed by the presiding officer to be sent to the Court lockup on March 19, 2007 and in the process was assaulted. On such grounds the petitioner sought transfer of the case from the Baruipur Court. That application, CRR No. 1254 of 2007, was disposed of by an order of April 9, 2007 refusing to transfer the case but requiring the trial Court to dispose of the petitioner's application under Section 231 of the Code. In rejecting the petitioner's plea for transfer, it was held in such order, inter alia, as follows:

The petition is, thus, disposed of with the observations as above. The learned trial judge is encouraged to conclude the proceedings as expeditiously as possible.

3. A further application was made by the petitioner on April 11, 2007, again under Sections 407 and 482 of the Code, repeating the allegations against the trial Judge which formed part of the petition that was disposed of by the order of April 9, 2007. To emphasise the charges levelled against the trial Judge, he was impleaded as opposite party No. 1. That further application being CRR No. 1432 of 2007 was dismissed on April 19, 2007 on the following lines:

The name of the opposite party No. 1 is deleted accordingly from the array of the opposite parties.
This is the third in the sequel of attempts by the petitioner to have the proceedings transferred. On the last application under Section 407 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, a direction had been issued requiring the learned Court below to take up the petitioner's application under Section 231 of the Code and to dispose of the same.
It does not appear from the averments made in this petition that a copy of the order passed on the last application (CRR 1254 of 2007) was placed before the learned Court below. In fact the plain copy of the order that the petitioner was permitted to obtain was obtained subsequent to the making of this application. This application is, therefore, not entertained despite copies thereof having been required to be served on the de-facto complainant and the State. The petitioner will produce the order passed on the last application under Section 407 being CRR No. 1254 of 2007 and also make over a copy of this order to the learned Court below. As required by the earlier order, the learned Court below would do best to conclude the trial as expeditiously as possible.