Dismissed¶23

Nakubala Mondal v. State of West Bengal and Ors.

Calcutta HC13 May 2025CRMSPL/3/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Leave to appeal under Section 419(4) B.N.S.S. 2023 dismissed as filed in the name of a deceased appellant; appellant died 25.07.2024, applications affirmed 07.01.2025; vokalatnama dated 07.01.2025 in name of dead person; advocate's explanation accepted vide affidavit dated 07.05.2025; police directed to register complaint dated 06.05.2025 as FIR; C.R.M.S.P.L. 3 of 2025 with CRAN 1 of 2025; coram Debangsu Basak, J. and Md. Shabbar Rashidi, J.; decided 13.05.2025.

What did the court decide?

The application for leave to appeal (C.R.M.S.P.L. 3 of 2025) and the connected application (CRAN 1 of 2025) are dismissed, the proceedings having been filed in the name of a dead person. ¶23

Nakubala Mondal Vs State of West Bengal and Ors. — Calcutta HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

¶1

13.05.2025

¶2

Ct. No. 26 S.D.

¶3

C.R.M.S.P.L. 3 of 2025

¶4

With

¶5

CRAN 1 of 2025

¶6

In re: An application under Section 419 (4)) of the B.N.S.S., 2023.

¶7

In the matter of: Smt. Nakubala Mondal

¶8

…Appellant

¶9

Mr. Milon Mukherjee, Sr. Adv., Mr. Saibal Mondal Mr. Joy Chakraborty Mr. Souvik Ganguly

¶10

….For the appellant

¶11

Mr. Abhijit Ganguly Mr. Shiladitya Banerjee …for the respondent nos. 2 to 7 Mr. Sujan Chatterjee …for the State

¶12

Affidavit filed on behalf of the learned advocate for the appellant be taken on record.

¶13

Our attention was drawn at the behest of the private respondents that the appellant expired prior to the date of affirmation of the application.

¶14

On such basis, we passed an order dated April 25, 2025 which was subsequently corrected on April 30, 2025 due to typographical error. It transpires from the materials available on record that the appellant, Smt. Nakubala Mondal expired on July 25, 2024.

¶15

¶16

The application for leave to appeal along with the connected application are both affirmed on January 7, 2025 on which date, the appellant was dead.

¶17

The proceedings were, therefore filed in the name of a dead person.

¶18

We called upon the learned advocate for the appellant to explain his conduct in view of his signature appearing in the vokalatnama filed in the name of a dead person. The vokalatnama is dated January 7, 2025.

¶19

None of the appearing respondents opposes the prayer for acceptance of the affidavit of the learned advocate.

¶20

Explanation offered by the learned advocate appearing for the appellant as recorded in his affidavit dated May 7, 2025 is accepted, more particularly in view of his tender years in the profession. No doubt he will be cautious in the future.

¶21

Affidavit dated May 7, 2025 of the learned advocate contains a complaint to the police dated May 6, 2025.

¶22

Police will register such complaint dated May 6, 2025 as a First Information Report, if not already done.

¶23

In such circumstances, C.R.M.S.P.L. 3 of 2025 and the connected application being CRAN 1 of 2025 are dismissed.

¶24

(Debangsu Basak, J.)

¶25

(Md. Shabbar Rashidi, J.)

¶26