1

34
16.01.2020

(PP)
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,

Asansol.

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
2

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

turned down.

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.)