A revision petition was heard in the absence of the petitioners due to multiple non-appearances. The Court found the grounds for quashing criminal proceedings under the IPC insufficient and dismissed the revision.
Revision petition dismissed; interim order vacated.
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.
20.6.2022 9 AB Ct. No.6
CRR 453 of 2010
Mr. Santanu Chatterjee ……. For the State
None appears today even on the second call on behalf of the petitioners though the learned advocate for the State is represented.
Record reveals that previously on 09.6.2022, 10.6.2022 and 16.6.2022 no one appeared on behalf of the petitioners in the matter when the matter was called on for hearing. Hence, the case record is taken up for delivering the order in absence of the petitioner.
In this revision petition the petitioners have challenged the investigation with respect to Mathurapur Police Case No. 16(8) of 1988 dated 17.8.1988 dated 17.8.1988 under Section 148/149/427/380/323/411 of the Indian Penal Code corresponding to G.R. Case No. 928 of 1988, in the Court of learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Diamond Harbour, South 24-Parganas. Petitioners have prayed for quashing of the proceedings in Mathurapur P.S. Case No. 16(8) of 1988 dated 17.8.1988. It appears that an F.I.R. was lodged on 17th August, 1988 against the petitioners being registered as mentioned above. Investigation has started during pendency of the investigation. The petitioners have endevoured to challenge the veracity of the same and prayed for quashing of the proceedings.
On perusal of the grounds stated by the petitioner those are found not to be sufficient and convincing enough to satisfy this Court to interfere into the impugned order passed by the Court below as challenged in this revision petition.
On the finding as above, I am inclined to dismiss the revision case being CRR 453 of 2010. Interim order, if any, stands vacated. Connected application, if any, stands adjudicated with the case.
Urgent photostat certified copy of this order may be supplied to the parties expeditiously, if applied for.
(Rai Chattopadhyay, J.)
State
Petitioners
Rai Chattopadhyay
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
