The High Court disposed of a revisional application challenging an order directing further investigation, holding it infructuous as investigation was complete and trial commenced.
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.
89 05.07.2022 CRR 2755 of 2010 AGM
Ct. No. 21
In the matter of:- Dr. Kumud Ranjan Biswas & Anr. …petitioners
Mr. Saurav Chatterjee …for the petitioners. Mr. Swapan Banerjee, Ms. Sujata Das, … State.
This revisional application has been preferred challenging an order passed by learned Magistrate, on 10th November, 2008, directing further investigation.
During the pendency of this revisional application, the further investigation has been completed by the police and the charge sheet has been filed. The trial has also commenced. The State submits that as on date, 15 witnesses have been examined.
At this juncture, there is no scope to interfere with the order of the learned Magistrate, whereby further investigation was directed.
Accordingly, CRR 2755 of 2010 is disposed of as infructuous.
The petitioners are given liberty to agitate all points taken in the revisional application at the appropriate stage before the learned Magistrate in the Court below.
(Kausik Chanda, J. )
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the revisional application can be interfered with when investigation has been completed and charge sheet filed.
Whether the revisional application is disposed of as infructuous.
Dr. Kumud Ranjan Biswas & Anr.
State
Kausik Chanda
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
