Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)
Usha Shankar Bhattacharya & Anr vs State Of West Bengal & Ors on 3 July, 2023
1
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
CRIMINAL REVISIONAL JURISDICTION
APPELLATE SIDE
Present:
The Hon'ble Justice Ananya Bandyopadhyay
C.R.R. 995 of 2014
With
CRAN 1 of 2023
Usha Shankar Bhattacharya & Anr.
Vs
State of West Bengal & Ors.
For the Petitioners : Mr. Usha Shankar Bhattacharya
(in Person)
For the State : Mr. Ranabir Roy Chowdhury
Mr. Mainak Gupta
Heard on : 05.04.2023
Judgment on : 03.07.2023
Ananya Bandyopadhyay, J.:-
1.
The instant criminal revisional application is preferred against the
impugned Order No. 8 passed by Learned Additional District & Sessions
Judge (Fast Track - I) at Sealdah, dt. 23.12.13, in Criminal Motion No.
11/2013 and against dismissal of Complaint Case No. C686/2011 by
Judicial Magistrate 2, Sealdah.
2. The petitioners filed a case under Section 144 Cr.P.C. bearing M.P. Case
No. 2994/2010 against the opposite parties before the Court of the
Learned Executive Magistrate at Sealdah seeking entry and egress to the
property shown as the residential address of petitioner no. 1, and
repossessing documents of national importance perishing in their
residence, wherefrom they had been wrongfully restrained to enter for 6-7
years by O.P.s 2 and 3.
3. It was further contended that, Ld. Executive Magistrate, Sealdah, passed
an order directing to see that the opposite parties not to create any
obstruction towards free ingress and egress of the petitioners in the
property without due process of law.
4. The investigating officer thereafter submitted his report before the Ld.
Court, stating the opposite parties to have restrained the petitioners from
entry and egress to the property.
5. Petitioners therefore, filed a complaint case under Section 200 Criminal
Procedure Code for proceeding under Section 339-41 IPC, Contempt of
Court etc., which was numbered as C-686 of 2011. Ld. Judicial Magistrate
2nd Court, Sealdah, however dismissed the case.
6. A revision under Sections 397 and 399 Cr.P.C. was filed by petitioners,
which was initially numbered as Criminal Motion No. 4 of 2013, and later
transferred to Ld. Additional District & Sessions Judge (Fast Track - AD &
SJ (FT I) ) and numbered as Criminal Motion 11 of 2013.
7. Ld. AD & SJ (FT I) Sealdah dismissed the said criminal motion stating the
same to be barred by the Limitation Act.
8. The Learned Court of Additional District & Sessions Judge, Fast Track
Court-I, Sealdah inter alia observed that:
"After receiving the case record from Learned ACJM, Ld. Court below
examined the revisionist u/s 200 Cr.P.C. and as he was not
satisfied to issue process, he postponed the same and directed O/C
of concerned P.S. to enquire and to report u/s 202 of Cr.P.C. After
receiving the police report and considering all aspect ld. Court below
dismissed the same holding that the dispute is purely civil in nature.
Before going into the merit of the case first let us see whether the
revision has been filed within limitation period or not.
As per Article 131 of Limitation Act, any aggrieved person who want
any court to exercise his power of revision under Cr.P.C. against any
order passed by Lower Court, he has preferred the revision within
90 days. In this instant case, the impugned order as passed on
07.08.12 and the revision was preferred on 04.01.13. There was no
separate application filed for condonation of delay and neither any
delay was condoned specifically. So, I am constrained to say that
the revision is barred by limitation.
As a result revision failed. Hence, it is ordered that the criminal
motion being no. 11 of 13 be and the same is dismissed on contest
but without cost. The impugned order dated 07.08.12 passed by Ld.
J.M., 2nd floor Sealdah is hereby affirmed."
9. Article 131 of the Limitation Act states as follows:
Time from which period
Description of suit Period of Limitation
begins to run
"To any court for the Ninety Days The date of the decree
exercise of its powers of or order or sentence
revision under the Code of sought to be revised"
Civil Procedure, 1908
(5 of 1908) or the Code
of Criminal Procedure,
1898 (5 of 1898)
10. The petitioners did not prefer the revisional application within the
mandatory period of 90 days nor did they file any application for
condonation of delay while filing the application beyond the stipulated
period of 90 days.
11. This Court does not find any illegality or impropriety with the impugned
order and does not want to interfere with the same.
12. Accordingly, the instant criminal revisional application being CRR 995 of
2014 is dismissed and stands disposed of.
13. Connected application if any is also disposed of accordingly.
14. There is no order as to cost.
15. Let the copy of this judgment be sent to the Learned Trial Court as well as
the police station concerned for necessary information and compliance.
16. All parties shall act on the server copy of this judgment duly downloaded
from the official website of this court.
(Ananya Bandyopadhyay, J.)
