Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)
Swapan Kumar Giri vs The State Of West Bengal & Anr on 6 January, 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
CRIMINAL REVISIONAL JURISDICTION
APPELLATE SIDE
The Hon'ble JUSTICE BIBEK CHAUDHURI
CRR 4414 of 2022
Swapan Kumar Giri
-Vs-
The State of West Bengal & Anr.
For the Petitioner: Mr. Samiran Giri, Adv.
For the State: Mr. Sandip Chakraborty, Adv.
Heard on: 06 January, 2023.
Judgment on: 06 January, 2023.
BIBEK CHAUDHURI, J. : -
1.
This is an application for expeditious disposal of GR Case No.310 of
2004 arising out of Ramnagar P.S Case 62 of 2004 dated 16th June, 2004
under Section 498A/326/323/384/307 of the IPC. It is pointed out by the
learned Advocate for the petitioner that on the basis of written complaint
submitted by the opposite party No.2 the abovementiond criminal case
was instituted. On completion of investigation police submitted charge-
sheet against the accused on 30th September, 2004, the case was then
transferred to the learned Judicial Magistrate, 2nd Court at Contai for trial
and disposal. There are only seven witnesses as per the charge-sheet. Till
date, prosecution has been able to examine only two witnesses remaining
five witnesses have not been examined for last 18 years.
2. The learned Magistrate is going on fixing date after date for trial
without considering fact that the prosecution has not been able to
produce the remaining witnesses as per the charge-sheet.
3. It is also submitted by the learned Advocate for the
petitioner/husband that the petitioner is going to retire soon from service.
Because of the pendency of the case the petitioner is not in a position to
prepare his pension papers. Therefore necessary direction may be made to
the learned Magistrate to dispose of the said criminal case at the earliest.
4. Considering the nature of allegation this Court is of the view that
the instant revision can be disposed of with the assistance of the learned
Public Prosecutor-in-charge. Therefore Mr. Sandip Chakraborty, ld. Public
Prosecutor is requested to assist this Court on behalf of the state.
Appointment of Mr. Sandip Chakraborty be regularized by the learned
Legal Rememenbrancer, Government of West Bengal.
5. I have carefully perused the entire materials on record. GR Case
No.310 of 2004 is now pending before the learned Judicial Magistrate, 2nd
Court at Contai. The defacto complainant of this case was examined as
PW1. In her examination in chief she stated that she was married to the
petitioner on 23rd January, 1989. Then she stated on oath that she did
not remember anything about the case. She also stated in her cross-
examination that she did not remember what was written in her
complaint. PW2 also failed to throw any light in respect of the prosecution
case. It is surprising to note that when the defacto complainant who is the
author of the prosecution case did not make any allegation against her
husband in course of his evidence, the Magistrate went on dragging the
case with full knowledge that no effective result will arrive in the instant
case.
6. In view of the evidence adduced by the defacto complainant,
continuation of the criminal proceeding will be an exercise in futility and
justice in the case demands that the dispute between the parties is put to
an end and peace is restored.
7. In view of the above discussion the learned Magistrate, 2nd Court at
Contai is specifically directed to close the prosecution evidence on receipt
of the copy of this order and examine the accused under Section 313 of
the Cr.P.C, if necessary and come to a logical end of the matter within
three weeks from the date of communication of this order. The petitioner
is at liberty to communicate the order obtaining server copy of the same.
8. The instant revision is thus disposed of.
(Bibek Chaudhuri, J.)
