Dismissed

Imam Ali Khan v. State of West Bengal & Anr.

Calcutta HC10 Mar 2022CRR/1340/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Single Judge dismissed the revisional application as non-maintainable at this stage because the charge-sheet had already been filed and cognizance taken. However, the petitioner was allowed to raise merits at trial, and the Court directed the Magistrate to expedite the trial.

What did the court decide?

Application dismissed; liberty granted to raise points at charge stage; trial court directed to fix monthly dates.

Imam Ali Khan Vs State of West Bengal & Anr. — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Calcutta HC (2022)

10.03.2022 .

Item No.46

IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA CRIMINAL REVISIONAL JURISDICTION

¶5

C.R.R. 1340 of 2018

¶6

Iman Ali Khan

¶7

Vs.

¶8

The State of West Bengal & anr.

¶9

Mr. Rabiul Islam Ms. Afreen Begum … for the petitioner

¶10

Mr. Arijit Ganguly Ms. Sujata Das … for the State

¶11

In Re: An application under Section 482 read with Section 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973

¶12

Report submitted by Mr. Arijit Ganguly, learned Advocate for the State be kept with the record.

¶13

Report reflects that charge-sheet was filed on August, 2020 under Sections 341/427/379 of the Indian Penal Code and the next date has been fixed before the jurisdictional court on 26.5.2022.

¶14

Petitioner has challenged in this revisional application regarding the delayed investigation and prayed for quashing of the criminal proceeding.

¶15

Learned lawyer appearing for the petitioner was repeatedly confronted with the issue whether an application under the provisions of Section 167(5) of the Code of Criminal Procedure was

¶16

¶17

preferred by the petitioner before the jurisdiction court in seisin of the matter.

¶18

Learned Advocate for the petitioner on instruction submits and the order sheet so available reflects that no application was preferred before the learned Magistrate. However, learned Advocate insists this Court to invoke the jurisdiction under Section 167(5) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Learned Advocate relies upon two decisions reported in 2003 SCC Online Cal 568 (Naresh Chandra Joarda & Partha Sarathi Roychoudhury Vs. State of West Bengal) and also reported in 2002 SCC Online Cal 191 (Anup Kumar Roy Vs. State of West Bengal).

¶19

Both the judgements referred to by the learned Advocate for the petitioner are contrary to the judgement of the Hon’ble Supreme Court reported in A.I.R. 1996 S.C. 740 (Durgesh Chandra Saha Vs. Bimal Chandra Saha and ors.). The judgements referred to are in the nature of deciding an issue under Article 21 of the Constitution of India on the foundation of right to speedy trial.

¶20

Be that as it may, as the charge-sheet has already been submitted before the jurisdictional court, and cognizance has already been taken by the learned Magistrate, I am of the opinion that no interference can be made at this stage. However, the petitioner would be at liberty to agitate the points regarding the merits of the case at the stage of consideration of charge before the learned Magistrate.

¶21

¶22

With the aforesaid observations, CRR 1340 of 2018 is disposed of. Pending application, if any, is consequently disposed of.

¶23

Interim order, if any, stands vacated.

¶24

Learned Magistrate is directed to fix at least one day in a month so

¶25

that the trial of the case can reach to its logical conclusion.

¶26

All parties shall act on the server copy of this order duly downloaded from the official website of this Court.

¶27