Disposed

Keshaav Chakrabarty @ Keshab Chakraborty v. State of West Bengal

Calcutta HC9 Mar 2021CRR/680/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this revisional application, the High Court directed the trial court to expedite the conclusion of the trial regarding Sections 406, 420 and 506 of the IPC by framing the charge within three months. The court emphasized the inordinate delay and lack of prejudice to either party.

What did the court decide?

The trial court was directed to conclude the trial and frame charges as expeditiously as possible, preferably within three months.

Keshaav Chakrabarty @ Keshab Chakraborty Vs… — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Calcutta HC (2021)

¶1

09.03.2021 Ct. No. 32 Sdas 118

¶2

C.R.R. 680 of 2021

¶3

In Re : Keshaav Chakrabarty @ Keshab Chakraborty ….petitioner. Mr. Sourav Chatterjee Mr. Aditya Tewari …for the petitioner. Mr. Imran Ali Mrs. Debjani Sahu …for the State.

¶4

This is an application seeking an expeditious disposal of a proceeding in which a charge sheet was submitted under Sections 406,420 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code.

¶5

A copy of the application is served upon Mr. Ali and Mrs. Sahu, learned Counsels, who are present in Court and who ordinarily appear on behalf of the State. They are requested to appear in the matter. Their engagement be regularised by the competent authority of the State.

¶6

Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits as follows. The petitioner is an accused in this case. Although the F.I.R. was lodged in February, 2009 and a chargesheet was submitted in November, 2009, till date the proceeding could not be concluded. Even copies have not yet been served on the accused. The matter has remained pending for no fault of the petitioner.

¶7

Learned Counsel appearing for the State submits that an appropriate direction may be passed to expedite the proceeding.

¶8

¶9

I have heard the submissions of the learned counsels appearing on behalf of the petitioner and the State and have perused the revision petition.

¶10

No prejudice will be caused to anyone if a direction is passed to expedite the proceeding.

¶11

It appears that an inordinate delay was occasioned in concluding the impugned proceeding.

¶12

In view of the above and in the interest of justice, I request the learned trial court to conclude the trial as expeditiously as possible without granting any unnecessary adjournment to any of the parties and after supply of the copies to the accused, to decide the question of framing of charge at the earliest, preferably within a period of three months from the next date of hearing.

¶13

With these observations, the revisional application is disposed of.

¶14

Urgent photostat certified copy of the order, if applied for, be given to the parties, upon usual undertakings.

¶15

(Jay Sengupta, J.)

Keshaav Chakrabarty @ Keshab Chakraborty v. State of West Bengal

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Keshaav Chakrabarty @ Keshab Chakraborty v. State of West Bengal

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

K. Balasubramaniam @ Balasbramanian Kesavan Vs State of West Bengal& Anr.

Krishnendu Dey Vs State of West Bengal and Ors.

Azizul Gazi Vs Chhayama Gazi and Anr.

Nasiruddin @Raju@Lama Vs State of West Bengal and Anr.

Kunal Jiwarajka and Ors. Vs State of West Bengal and Anr.

Gobindo Kumar Halder and Anr. Vs State of West Bengal and Another