1
12.09.19 C.R.R. 1764 of 2019
Ct. 33
Sl. 54 Jiban Nesha Bibi
Sp.
-Versus-
The State of West Bengal Ors.
Mr. Pawan Kumar Gupta,
Mr. Md. Hasanuz Zaman,
Ms. Sofia Nesar,
Mr. Santanu Sett …….for the petitioner
Mr. Ayan Basu,
Mr. Prabir Kumar Das,
Mr. Sumit Routh …..for the respondent no. 2,3 4
Mr. Saswata Gopal Mukherjee, Ld. P.P.,
Mrs. Sayanti Santra …..for the State
The revisionist is aggrieved by order dated
February 27, 2019 passed by the learned Additional
Chief Judicial Magistrate, Katwa in G.R. Case No. 997
of 2017 whereby her narazi petition was rejected by
the court below. It is apparent from the order that the
grounds on which the final report/charge sheet was
objected by the revisionist, have not been addressed
clearly.
The revisionist had objected to the final report
on a two-fold ground that her statement was not
2
recorded by the police authority nor was the place of
occurrence duly scrutinized. She, therefore,
submitted that the investigation has not been
properly conducted by the police. It appears that the
police has registered a case under Section 498A/306
read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code.
The revisionist would want Section 304B of
the IPC also to be included as a Section under which
the accused should be charged.
The revisionist has read out the complaint in
Court and the Court has also seen the same from the
case diary. There is no whisper in the complaint as
regards any demand for dowry. The said complaint
has been drafted by a legally qualified person, who is
properly literate and must have been done soon the
instructions of the revisionist. The revisionist,
therefore, cannot have any grievance that Section
304B of the Code has not been included as a Section
under which the accused had been charged.
3
In those circumstances, this Court is of the
view that the investigation has been conducted in
accordance with law. In so far as non-recording of the
petitioner’s statement is concerned, this Court is of
the view that the revisionist shall always get a chance
to depose evidence in course of trial where she can
relate the facts to the best of her knowledge. The
learned Magistrate can, at any stage, add or remove
Sections under which the accused persons are
charged.
It is submitted by the learned counsel for the
State that all the accused persons are on bail since
the investigation is over and charge sheet has been
filed.
In those circumstances, no interference is
called for in the instant revisional application. The
same is disposed of with a direction upon the learned
Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Katwa to take
the process of committal as expeditiously as possible
4
and it is hopped and reasonably expected that the
trial is completed within a period of eight months
from the date of communication of a copy of this
order.
With the aforesaid observations, the revisional
application is disposed of.
There will be no order as to costs.
Urgent photostat certified copy of this order, if
applied for, be given to the parties on usual
undertaking.
(Rajasekhar Mantha, J.)
