SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation

Judgments of Supreme Court of India and High Courts

Indranil Mukherjee vs The State Of West Bengal & Anr on 1 August, 2019

In the High Court at Calcutta
Criminal Revisional Jurisdiction
Appellate Side

Present:-

The Hon’ble Justice Subhasis Dasgupta.

CRR No. 3501 of 2018

Indranil Mukherjee
Vs.

The State of West Bengal Anr.

For the Petitioner : Mr. Ayan Bhattacharjee, Adv.

Mr. Anjan Datta, Adv.

For the Opposite Party No. 2 : Mr. Anupan Bhattacharjee, Adv.

Mr. Tapas Kumr Mondal, Adv.

Mr. Anirban Dey, Adv.

For the State : Mr. Binoy Kumar Panda, Adv.
Ms. Puspita Saha, Adv.

Judgment on : 01.08.2019

Subhasis Dasgupta, J:-

This is an application under Section 407 read with Section 482 of the

Code of Criminal Procedure, praying for transfer of Criminal Revision No. 94 of

2018, now pending before the court of learned Additional District Judge, 5th

Court, Barasat, North 24-Parganas to High Court where CRR 757 of 2018 is

pending for decision.

The opposite party No.2 submitted First Information Report at

Bidhannagar South Police Station, alleging offence, specifically spelt out in the

FIR under Section 498A/Section406/Section384/Section325/Section307/Section34 of IPC. Police took up

investigation and ultimately submitted charge sheet making out prime facie case

under Section 498A/Section406/Section384/Section325/Section34 of IPC but dropping Section 307 IPC from

the charge sheet. De-facto complainant/opposite party No.2 felt aggrieved with

the deletion of Section 307 IPC, and the manner in which the investigation was

undertaken, and accordingly submitted an application under Section 173(8)

Cr.P.C. for further investigation.

The petitioner herein conceding to the prayer for further investigation

submitted a similar prayer. The court below by order dated 3rd April, 2018,

rejected the prayer under Section 173(8) Cr.P.C.

De-facto complainant/opposite party No.2 being aggrieved by and

dissatisfied with the order dated 3rd April, 2018, passed by the Judicial

Magistrate, Bidhannagar, moved a Criminal Revisional Application before the

Learned Sessions Judge in connection with the Criminal Revision No. 94 of 2018,

now pending before the Learned Additional District Judge, 5th Court, Barasat,

North 24-Parganas.

Against the same common order dated 3rd April, 2018, the

revisionist/petitioner moved a separate Revisional Application in connection with

C.R.R. No. 757 of 2018 before this court, and the same is pending for decision.

Learned advocate for the petitioner in support of prayer for transfer

submitted that when there had been two separate Criminal Revisional
Applications filed by two separate parties arising out of same common order

originating from a self same case, one pending at learned Additional District

Judge, 5th Court, Barasat, and the another at High Court, in order to prevent

conflicting decision and multiplicity of proceedings, it is expedient for the justice

to hear both the Criminal Revsional Application together by High Court, after

allowing transfer of pending revisional case from the court of learned Additional

District Judge, 5th Court, Barasat to this court (High Court).

Learned advocate for the State/opposite party submitted that in the

interest of saving conflicting decisions, necessary order could be recorded for the

ends of justice.

Learned advocate for the opposite party No.2, in reply, submitted that the

pending Revisional Application filed by the petitioner before the High Court in

connection with C.R.R. No. 757 of 2018 could be well withdrawn by the petitioner

with liberty to file the same before the learned Sessions Judg, Barasat, so that

both the cases could be heard together.

The only point requires address by this court is whether the proposed

transfer is permissible or not.

Admittedly, Criminal Revisional Application No. 94 of 2018 was filed at the

instance of the de-facto complainant/opposite party No.2, now pending before

the learned Additional District Judge, 5th Court, Barasat, wehrein the order dated

3rd April, 2018 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate in G.R. Case No. 610 of

2015, rejecting the prayer for further investigation under Section 173(8) Cr. P.C.

is under challenge. Surprisingly, petitioner/revisionist, who conceded earlier to
the prayer of de-facto complainant under Section 173(8) of Cr.P.C. could not be

impleded therein as one of the parties in Criminal Revisional Application No. 94

of 2018.

Upon consideration of the rival submission raised by the parties, the court

of the view that the possibility of conflicting decision to come and the chance of

occasioning multiplicity of proceedings cannot be eliminated in the given set of

facts.

In that view of the matter, it is expedient for the ends of justice to allow

transfer of the pending Revisional Application being No. 94 of 2018, now pending

before the learned Additional District Judge, 5th Court, Barasat, to be heard

together with C.R.R No. 757 of 2018, now pending at High Court.

The C.R.R. being No. 3501 of 2018 deserves success.

Criminal Revisional Application No. 94 of 2018 now pending before the

learned Additional District Judge, 5th Court, Barasat, North 24-Parganas be

allowed to be transferred to this court for hearing together with pending C.R.R.

No. 757 of 2018 of High Court.

Learned Additional District Judge, 5th Court, Barasat, North 24-Parganas,

is as such directed to transfer the case record of Criminal Revisional Application

No.94 of 2018 to the High Court expeditiously in accordance with provisions of

law.

With this observation and direction, the Criminal Revisional Application

No. 3501 of 2018 stands disposed of.

Urgent photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for, be given to the

appearing parties as expeditiously as possible upon compliance with all

necessary formalities.

(Subhasis Dasgupta, 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