SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation

Judgments of Supreme Court of India and High Courts

Moumita Sarkar (Mullick) vs Unknown on 24 September, 2019

1

Court No. C.R.R. 2548 of 2019
28
Sl 120
ssi

24.09.19

In the matter of :- Moumita Sarkar (Mullick)

Mr. Biswarup Biswas
Mr. Gora Chand Samanta

…..for the petitioner
Mr. Imran Ali
…for the State

Although this is an application challenging an order dated

5.3.2019 passed by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate,

Bongaon, North 24 Parganas in G.R. Case No. 1358 of 2009, the

learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that the

petitioner is only praying for an expeditious disposal of the

proceeding.

Let a copy of the application be served upon Mr. Imran Ali,

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

appears on behalf of the State. His engagement may be regularised by

the competent authority of the State in due course.

Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits

as follows. The petitioner is the defacto-complainant in the present

proceeding under Sectionsections 406 and Section498A of the Indian Penal Code. In

the present case, the First Information Report lodged and even

charge-sheet was filed as far back as in the year 2009. In spite of the

same, till date the proceeding has not been concluded. The accused

are trying to avoid the Court by remaining absent. Although warrant

of arrest has been issued against the accused, long dates are being

fixed in the impugned proceeding. For instance, on 5.3.2019 the next

date was fixed as 5.3.2020 for execution return of the warrant of

arrest.

I have heard the submissions on behalf of the petitioner and

the State and have perused the revision petition.

I do not think any prejudice would be caused to anyone if an

order is passed directing an expeditious disposal of the case.

In view of the above and in the interest of justice, I direct the
2

learned court below to conclude the proceedings as expeditiously as

possible without granting any unnecessary adjournment to any of the

parties, preferably within one year from the next date of hearing.

The learned court below shall be at liberty to exercise all

coercive measures to ensure the attendance of witnesses. The learned

trial court shall prepone the next date of hearing to an earlier date

and proceed with the matter.

With these observations, 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 © 2020 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