Remanded

Subal Chandra Ghosh v. State of West Bengal

Calcutta HC2 Feb 2023CRR/881/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court disposed of a 11-year-old criminal revision regarding the delayed investigation of a 498A/406 IPC case. While noting the petitioners' agony, the Court held that pendency alone is insufficient to invoke inherent powers but directed authorities to act for a speedy trial.

What did the court decide?

Copies of the order sent to the trial Court; directed authorities to act to ensure speedy trial.

Subal Chandra Ghosh Vs State of West Bengal — Calcutta HC (2023) — LawSathi Research

¶1

02.02.2023 Item No.19 BR

¶2

CRR 881 of 2011

¶3

In the matter of : Kamal Ahmad

¶4

…….petitioner

¶5

Mr.B.K.Roy,

¶6

Ms. Sima Biswas ….. for the State

¶7

None is appearing to represent the petitioner.

¶8

This criminal revision is pending for more than 11 years. Therefore, I propose to dispose of the revisional application on merit based on materials available with the record. The anxiety and agony of the petitioner caused by existence of criminal proceeding being GR case No. 113 of 2003 and GR case No. 2372 of 2005 arising out of East Bidhannagar P.S. case No. 1 of 2003 dated 9^th January, 2003 for more than 8 years before the learned trial Court, without any progress are immense. It is contended that one Smt. Sayanti Ghosh informed the Officer-in-Charge of East Bidhannagar P.S. about her plight and the Officer-in-Charge of the said police station registered a case being East Bidhannagar P.S. case No. 1 of 2003

¶9

under Sections 498A/406 of the Indian Penal Code. The said case was registered as GR case No. 113 of 2003 initially and subsequently renumbered as GR case No. 2372 of 2005. Police though took up investigation could not complete the same and failed to submit charge sheet even after lapse of eight years. While acknowledging the right of the petitioner to have speedy disposal and appreciating his anxiety as well as agony caused by the slow or no pace in the proceeding, however, I do not consider the same to be sufficient to invoke the jurisdiction conferred under Section 482 of the Cr P C which has been conferred upon the Court to secure the ends of justice. However, while disposing the revisional application , I am inclined to direct the concerned authorities to rise to the occasion and to act to secure the constitutional right of the litigants to have speedy trial.

¶10

With this observation the criminal revision is disposed of.

¶11

Let a copy of the order be sent down to the learned trial Court for information and necessary action.

¶12

Urgent certified copy, if applied therefor, be supplied upon compliance of usual formalities.

¶13

( Siddhartha Roy Chowdhury, J. )

Subal Chandra Ghosh v. State of West Bengal

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Subal Chandra Ghosh v. State of West Bengal

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Krishna Bahadur Chhetri Vs Gita Chhetri

Mihir Das Vs State of West Bengal & Anr.

Mahesh Prasad & Ors. Vs Romita Prasad & Anr.

MD Madhu@Ahamed Hossain Vs State of West Bengal

Ram Chandra Jaiswal Vs State of West Bengal

Kamal Ahmad Vs State of West Bengal & Anr.