Dismissed
Subhapriya Majumder v. State of West Bengal
Calcutta HCCRR/367/2021
Case brief
from the order text
What is this about?
Item 20 ssi 12.02. 2021 C.R.R. 367 of 2021…
What the court decided
AI extract
Item 20 ssi 12.02. 2021 C.R.R. 367 of 2021…
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
Court No. 32 Item 20 ssi 12.02. 2021
C.R.R. 367 of 2021
In the matter of:- Subhapriya Majumder
Mr. Dhananjay Banerjee Ms. Oindrila Ghosh …for the petitioner
Mr. Prasun Kumar Datta, Ld. APP Mr. Md. Kutubuddin ….for the State
This is an application seeking an expeditious disposal of a proceeding in which a charge sheet was submitted under Sections 406, 498A read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code.
Let a copy of the application be served upon Mr. Prasun Kumar Datta and Mr. Md. Kutubuddin, learned advocates, who are present in court today and who ordinarily appear on behalf of the State. Their engagement may be regularised in due course by the competent authority of the State.
Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits as follows. The petitioner is an accused in this case. Although the FIR was registered in 2010 and a charge sheet was submitted in 2011, till date, the proceeding could not be concluded. After the charges were framed in 2014, not a single witness could be examined in this case. Dates are being fixed for appearance of CSW1.
2
But, CSW1 has not turned up to adduce evidence. The proceeding has remained pending for no fault of the present petitioner. There are 15 witnesses in this case, as per charge-sheet.
Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State submits that it will be in the interest of justice if a direction is passed to expedite the proceeding.
I have heard the submissions of the learned counsels appearing on behalf of the petitioner and the State and have perused the revision petition.
No prejudice will be caused to any one, if a direction is passed for expediting the proceeding.
It appears that an inordinate delay has been occasioned in concluding the impugned proceeding.
In view of the above and in the interest of justice, I request the learned trial Court to conclude the proceeding as expeditiously as possible without granting any unnecessary adjournment to any of the parties, preferably within a period of one year from the next date of hearing.
With these observations, the revisional application is disposed of.
Urgent photostat certified copies of this order may be delivered to the learned Advocates for the parties, if applied for, upon compliance of all formalities.
(Jay Sengupta, J.)
Subhapriya Majumder
State
Jay Sengupta
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court