The High Court disposed of a revisional application challenging an FIR under Section 482 CrPC. Finding that a charge sheet had been filed against the accused, the court held the application infructuous as the petitioners were not sent up for trial.
The revisional application CRR 3257 of 2009 is disposed of as infructuous.
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.
01.9.2022 14 SB Ct. No.236
CRR 3257 of 2009
In the matter of : Abu Hasem Khan Chowdhury & Anr. Mr. Biswajit Manna … for the Petitioners Mr. S. G. Mukherjee, Ld. P.P. Md. Anwar Hossain Ms. Manisha Sharma … for the State
Heard learned Advocates for the Petitioners and the State.
This revisional application is filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure challenging the F.I.R. registered against the petitioners namely, Abu Hasem Khan Chowdhury and Mausam Benazir Noor along with other accused persons by S.I. Jayanta Lodh Choudhury, English Bazar Police Station under Sections 143/341/186/353/323/379 read with Section 188 of the Indian Penal Code being English Bazar P.S. Case No. 557 OF 2009.
Police took up investigation which has culminated into submission of a charge sheet in English Bazar P.S. Charge Sheet No. -780 of 2020 dated 13.9.2020 against the four accused persons while the petitioners have not been sent up for trial.
Under such circumstances, the present revisional application has become infructuous.
The revisional application being C.R.R. 3257 of 2009 is disposed of as infructuous.
The memo of evidence submitted by the learned counsel for the State is taken with the record. Copy of the order be sent to the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Malda.
(Siddhartha Roy Chowdhury, J.)
Abu Hasem Khan Chowdhury & Anr.
State
Siddhartha Roy Chowdhury
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
