Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)
Jyotirindra Narayan Ghosh vs State Of West Bengal & Anr on 7 February, 2022
Form No. J(2)
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
Criminal Revisional Jurisdiction
Appellate Side
Present:
The Hon'ble Justice Jay Sengupta
CRR 2028 of 2021
Jyotirindra Narayan Ghosh
Vs.
State of West Bengal & Anr.
For the Petitioner : Mr. Soumava Mukherjee
Mr. Soham Ray
For the State : Mr. Madhusudan Sur
Mr. Dipankar Paramanick
For the O.P. No. 2 : Mr. Satadru Lahiri
Mr. Safdar Azam
Heard on : 7th February 2022
Judgment on : : 7th February 2022
The Court:
This is an application seeking an expeditious disposal of a proceeding being
G.R. Case No. 242 of 2010 presently pending before the Learned Additional Chief
Judicial Magistrate, Bidhannagar, North 24 Parganas.
Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits as follows. The
petitioner is an accused in this case. The F.I.R. was lodged in April 2010. After
matrimonial disputes cropped up between the petitioner and the former wife / the de
facto complainant in this case, a divorce had taken place. The petitioner used to
reside in the US. There was an application made for extradition of the petitioner and
for revoking of his passport. The petitioner was not aware of the revocation of his
passport in 2012 by the passport authority because in the meantime, this Court had
granted stay over a proceeding praying for revokation. He applied for the passport
afresh and had to come to India for such purpose. Due to a notification of the Ministry
of External Affairs, Government of India, a passport could be granted to him, valid
only for a year, as the present criminal case was pending. The matter is pending
since long and in view of the same, an order may be passed by this Court expediting
the trial. Out of sixteen prosecution witnesses, only one witness has been examined
till date.
Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the O.P. No. 2 submits as follows. It is
the petitioner who is substantially responsible for the delay in the proceeding since
2010. First, the mother-in-law and the petitioner prayed for quashing of the
proceeding, which was pending since long. The proceeding was quashed in respect
of the mother-in-law in 2015. Thereafter, the petitioner challenged the order refusing
to quash the proceeding against him before the Hon'ble Apex Court. It took some
time to be disposed of. Even at present, the petitioner has filed an application under
Section 242(2) of the Code to delay the trial. The petitioner is not coming in clean
hands so as to be granted the benefit of an expeditious disposal of the trial.
Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State in his usual fairness,
submits that the State would not come in the way if a direction would be passed to
expedite the case, especially considering the fact that the matter is pending since
2010.
I have heard the submissions of the learned counsels for the parties and have
perused the revision petition.
Prosecuting a legal right in a Court of law cannot amount to avoiding due
process of law. If a litigant has a right under a particular provision of law he cannot be
prevented from pursuing the same before a learned Court.
Be that as it may, from the above facts it appears that a considerable delay
that has been occasioned in this case, especially considering the fact that the matter
is pending since 2010.
It appears that only one witness has been examined-in-chief out of 16
witnesses.
In view of the above and in the interest of justice, the learned Trial Court is
requested to conclude the trial as expeditiously as possible without granting any
unnecessary adjournment to any of the parties, preferably within one year from the
next date of hearing.
With these observations, the revisional application is disposed of.
Urgent photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for, be given to the
parties, upon completion of requisite formalities.
(JAY SENGUPTA,J )
SB
