Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)
Jayashree Bose & Anr vs Sri Debasish Dhar & Anr on 20 July, 2021
20.07.2021 IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
Item No.3 CRIMINAL REVISIONAL JURISDICTION
Ct.No.34
dc.
C.R.R. 3110 of 2016
+
CRAN 6 of 2020 (Old No. CRAN 945 of 2020)
(Via Video Conference)
Jayashree Bose & Anr.
versus
Sri Debasish Dhar & Anr.
In Re: An Application under Section 401 read with Section
482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure filed for quashing the
proceedings of Parnasree P.S. Case No. 140 dated 12.06.2012
under Sections 448/380/114 of the Indian Penal Code being
T.R. Case No. 2014.
Mr. Indrajeet Dey ... For the Petitioners.
Mr. Sandipan Ganguly, Sr. Adv.,
Ms. Kabita Mukherjee,
Mr. Manas Dasgupta ... For the Opposite Party No.1.
Mr. Arijit Ganguly,
Mr. Sandip Chakraborty ... For the State.
Mr. Indrajeet Dey, learned advocate appearing for the
petitioners has submitted his notes of arguments. The
learned advocate has emphasized on the factum of malafide
as also referred to the previous litigations which include a
case under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and the
findings of the Consumer Dispute Redressal Forum as well as
Kolkata Municipal Corporation.
Mr. Sandipan Ganguly, learned senior advocate
appearing for the opposite party no.1 supports the judgment
and order delivered by the learned trial court while disposing
of the application under Section 239 of the Code of Criminal
Procedure and submits that so far as the offence under
Section 448 of the Indian Penal Code is concerned, the same
is substantiated by oral evidence as well as the complaint
which was lodged with the police station.
Mr. Arijit Ganguly, learned advocate appearing for the
State has produced the case diary.
I have perused the case diary as well as the documents
placed by the petitioners and the opposite party no.1/de facto
complainant. Needless to state that this Court is adjudicating
at the stage of consideration of charge when the settled
principles of law is that in case there is a grave suspicion, the
court should be slow in interference and direct the trial to
proceed. The accused at this stage may be having documents
in their custody which could substantiate their claim after
being considered at the end of the trial. As the appreciation at
this stage is only restricted to the concept of prima facie case
being made out and not a case for consideration for
conviction or acquittal, I am of the view that the learned
Magistrate was not wrong in arriving at his own conclusion.
As such, no interference is called for.
The learned trial court is directed to frame the charge
and proceed with the trial of the case in the manner by fixing
schedule so that the same can be completed within a
reasonable period of time.
I find both the accused persons are ladies who may
have difficulty in attending the court regularly. As such, if an
undertaking under Sections 205/317 of the Code of Criminal
Procedure is taken out by their representative lawyers, then
in that case, the learned court would consider dispensing
with their personal appearance either on the particular day or
on a number of dates as the learned trial court would think
fit and proper.
With the aforesaid observations, CRR 3110 of 2016 is
disposed of.
Interim order, if any, is hereby vacated.
All pending applications, if any, are consequently
disposed of.
Department is directed to communicate this order to
the learned court below.
All parties shall act on the server copy of this order
duly downloaded from the official website of this Court.
(Tirthankar Ghosh, J.)
