CRR 128 of 2020
In the matter of : Md. Nasim …Petitioner.
Mr. Apurba Kumar Datta,
Mr. Subhabrata Bandyopadhyay
….for the petitioner.
The petitioner being one of the accused persons of
Sessions Case No.400 of 2015 corresponding to Sessions Trial
No.62 of 2016 arising out of Kulti Police Station Case No.127 of
2013 dated 15th April, 2013 under Sections 498A/304B/34 of the
Indian penal Code and under Sections 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition
Act has approached this Court by way of filing an application
under Section 401 read with Section 482 of the Code of Criminal
Procedure challenging the impugned order dated August 8, 2019
passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, 4th Court,
From the submissions made by the learned counsel
appearing for the petitioner, it appears that charges have already
been framed against the present petitioner and four other accused.
The learned Trial Judge has already examined four prosecution
witnesses. At this stage, the petitioner drew the attention of the
learned trial court regarding insertion of certain dates in the
written complaint and sought for referring the matter to the hand-
writing expert for opinion. That prayer of the petitioner was
The petitioner is directed to serve the copies of the
present application along with all annexed documents to the State
of West Bengal through the office of the learned Public Prosecutor
and to the de facto complainant by speed post with acknowledge
due within one week from date and to file affidavit of service within
two weeks from date.
Let the matter appear in the list under the same heading
two weeks hence.
Liberty is given to the learned advocate-on-record to
amend the cause title of the revisional application to make the de
facto complainant as opposite party no.2.
(Madhumati Mitra, J.)