Allowed

Sujoy Bhattacharya v. State of West Bengaland Anr.

Calcutta HC17 Mar 2022CRR/2693/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court quashed the proceedings in a criminal complaint case for voluntarily causing hurt (IPC 323) under CrPC Section 348. The Court held that the death of the complainant during the application's pendency entitled the petitioner to acquittal under CrPC Section 256(2), dispensing with the need for substitution.

What did the court decide?

The petitioner was acquitted from the case under IPC Section 323, discharged from the bail bond, and the complaint case was quashed.

Sujoy Bhattacharya Vs State of West Bengaland Anr. — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Calcutta HC (2022)

¶1

17.03.2022 Item no.14. Court No.40. AB

¶2

CRR No.2693 of 2013

¶3

In Re: An Application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.

¶4

And

¶5

In the matter of : Sujoy Bhattacharya

¶6

……Petitioner.

¶7

Mr. Satadru Lahiri, Mr. Safdar Azam …for the Petitioner. Mr. P.K. Dutta, ld. APP, Mr. N. P. Agarwal, Mr. S. Roy ….for the State.

¶8

This is a case for quashing of Complaint Case No. C.R. 507 of 2011 under Section 323 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 pending before the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Durgapur, Burdwan.

¶9

After the process had been issued, the petitioner/accused approached this Court by filing this revisional application for quashing of the said proceeding. It was submitted on behalf of the petitioner that the complainant/opposite party no.2 in this case had died during pendency of this application.

¶10

A report was called for from the State. The report of the State suggests that the complainant, during pendency of this

¶11

¶12

application, died on May 7, 2022, at his residence. No application for substitution has been filed by the legal heirs of the complainant in terms of Section 302 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. [See: (2006) 5 SCC 530 ( Balasaheb K. Thackeray v. Venkat ).

¶13

The accused/petitioner is entitled to be acquitted in view of the provisions of Section 256(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.

¶14

I see no justification in continuation of the complaint case before the learned Magistrate.

¶15

Accordingly, the petitioner stands acquitted from the case being Complaint Case No.507 of 2011 under Section 323 of the Indian Penal Code pending before the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Durgapur, Burdwan.

¶16

The petitioner may be discharged from the bail bond furnished by him before the learned Magistrate in the Court below.

¶17

Report filed by the State be kept with the record.

¶18

C.R.R. No.2693 of 2013 is, accordingly, disposed of.

¶19

Urgent photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for, be supplied to the parties upon compliance with all the necessary formalities.

¶20

Sujoy Bhattacharya v. State of West Bengaland Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sujoy Bhattacharya v. State of West Bengaland Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Case details

Similar cases

Papiya Bhattacharya Vs State of West Bengal & Anr.

Reyajul Haque & Ors. Vs State of West Bengal & Anr.

Sanjay Prakash Bansal Vs State of West Bengal & Anr.

Gautam Dey Vs Uttam Kumar Chatterjee

Piyali Das Vs Uttam Kumar Chatterjee

Anirban Laha & Ors. Vs State of West Bengal & Ors.