Arindam Kundu vs The State Of West Bengal & Ors
2022 Latest Caselaw 154 Cal

 D/L 13                                C.R.R. No.1175 of 2019
January 21,                            (Via Video Conference)

    Bpg.

In Re: An application under Section 401 read with Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973;

Arindam Kundu Versus The State of West Bengal & Ors.

Mr. Jagannath Ganguly.

...for the petitioner.

Mr. Arijit Ganguly, Ms. Sujata Das.

...for the State.

Affidavit-of-service filed by the petitioner be kept with the

record.

Mr. Jagannath Ganguly, learned advocate appearing for

the petitioner/defacto complainant draws the attention of this Court

to the order dated 25.03.2019 passed by the learned ACJM,

Sealdah.

Records of this revisional application reflect that the

naraji petition, which was filed at the instance of the defacto

complainant, could not be considered and the same was rejected as

none appeared on the said date. No order was passed on the merits

of the application, which was preferred by the defacto complainant.

Primarily, the order also is self-contradictory because the

consecutive paragraphs in the order reflect that in the first

paragraph it says that the defacto complainant appeared and the

next paragraph it says that the defacto complainant is absent.

Having regard to the nature of the order and the right

which has accrued to the defacto complainant pursuant to the

judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, I am of the view that at

least some opportunity must be given to the defacto complainant to

have an audience for ventilating his/her grievance once the report is

submitted under Section 173(8) of the Code of Criminal Procedure

before the jurisdictional court.

It has been submitted that the case has been transferred

to the learned Judicial Magistrate, 5th Court, Sealdah.

In view of the grievance of the defacto complainant,

learned transferee Magistrate will consider the application under

Section 173(8) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, which was earlier

filed before the learned ACJM, Sealdah. Such application must be

disposed of within sixty days from the date of communication of this

order.

Needless to state that this Court has not entered into the

merits of the case or the merits of the application under Section

173(8) of the Code of Criminal Procedure and the learned Judicial

Magistrate, 5th Court, Sealdah shall independently decide the same

on the foundation that whether any further investigation is required

or not.

With the aforesaid observations, CRR 1175 of 2019 is

disposed of.

Pending application, if any, is consequently disposed of.

Interim order, if any, is hereby vacated.

All parties shall act on the server copy of this order duly

downloaded from the official website of this Court.

(Tirthankar Ghosh, J.)