SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation

Judgments of Supreme Court of India and High Courts

Bijon Roy @ Bijon Kumar Roy vs Unknown on 26 February, 2019

1

26.02.2019

CRR 2617 of 2018
Ct. No. 29
In the matter of:- Bijon Roy @ Bijon Kumar Roy …petitioner

Md. Azizul Alam,
Mr. Avijit Mondal,
Mr. Arun Shaw.

…for the petitioner.

Mr. Arijit Ganguly.

…for the State.

The learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioner

submits that this is an application for expeditious disposal of a proceeding

pending before the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Arambagh,

Hooghly in GR Case No.1497 of 2012 under Section 498A of the Penal

Code.

Let a copy of this application be served upon Mr. Arijit Ganguly,

learned Advocate who is present in Court today and who ordinarily appears

on behalf of the Sate. His engagement may be regularised by the competent

authority of the State in due course.

The learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioner

submits that the petitioner is the 78 years old father-in-law of the de facto

complainant/opposite party no.1. He is suffering from chronic pulmonary

disease. The learned Advocate submits that the First Information Report in

this case was lodged in 2012 and after submission of the charge sheet

dated 11/11/2012, charges were framed against the accused on 3/7/2013.

He submits that for no fault of the petitioner, the Trial Court has dragged on.

Earlier on a number of occasions the de facto complainant did not turn up to

depose as a witness. He submits that thereafter the parents of the de facto

complainant, despite receiving summons did not appear to depose.

I have heard the submissions of the learned Advocates appearing

on behalf of the petitioner as well as for the State and have perused the

revision petition even along with the copy of the order sheet annexed.

I do not think any prejudice will be caused to anyone, if an order is passed

directing an expeditious disposal of the proceeding.

In the interest of justice, the learned Trial Court is directed to
2

conclude the trial as expeditiously as possible without granting any

unnecessary adjournment to any of the parties, preferably within a period of

six months from the next date of hearing.

The revisional application is disposed of.

Urgent photostat certified copy of this order may be supplied to the parties

expeditiously, if applied for.

(Jay Sengupta, J.)

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Copyright © 2021 SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation
×

Free Legal Help, Just WhatsApp Away

MyNation HELP line

We are Not Lawyers, but No Lawyer will give you Advice like We do

Please read Group Rules – CLICK HERE, If You agree then Please Register CLICK HERE and after registration  JOIN WELCOME GROUP HERE

We handle Women Centric biased laws like False Sectioin 498A IPC, Domestic Violence(DV ACT), Divorce, Maintenance, Alimony, Child Custody, HMA 24, 125 CrPc, 307, 312, 313, 323, 354, 376, 377, 406, 420, 497, 506, 509; TEP, RTI and many more…

MyNation FoundationMyNation FoundationMyNation Foundation