Court No. C.R.R. 1582 of 2019
In the matter of :- Chandan Chakraborty Ors.
Mr. Snehansu Majumder.
….for the petitioners
Ms. Sujata Das.
…for the State
Although this is an application for quashing of a proceeding
under Sections 406/498A of the Indian Penal Code, the learned
counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners submits that the
petitioners would not like to press for quashing of the proceeding and
would instead pray for a direction for expeditious disposal of the case.
Let the petitioners serve a copy of the application upon Ms.
Sujata Das, learned Advocate, who is present in court today and who
ordinarily appears on behalf of the State. Her engagement may be
regularized by the competent authority of the case in due course.
The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners
submits as follows. The present proceeding was initiated by way of an
application under Section 156 (3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure
as far back as on 18.08.2008. Even though charges were framed on
30.01.2012, till date the trial could not be concluded. The proceeding
remains pending largely for no fault on behalf of the petitioners.
I have heard the submissions of the learned
counsels appearing on behalf of the petitioners and the
State and have perused the revision petition along with
the order-sheet annexed therewith.
I do not think any prejudice would be caused to anyone if an
order is passed directing an expeditious disposal of the case.
Although, the petitioners did contribute for some of the delay
in the proceeding, yet it appears that the proceeding remained
pending largely for no fault of the petitioners.
In view of the above and in the interest of justice, I direct the
learned Trial Court to conclude the proceeding as expeditiously as
possible without granting any unnecessary adjournment to any of the
parties, preferably within one year for the next date of hearing.
Urgent photostat certified copy of this order may be supplied
to the parties expeditiously, if applied for.
(Jay Sengupta, J.)