SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation

Judgments of Supreme Court of India and High Courts

Sp vs The State Of West Bengal & Ors on 12 September, 2019


12.09.19 C.R.R. 1764 of 2019
Ct. 33
Sl. 54 Jiban Nesha Bibi
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


The revisionist had objected to the final report

on a two-fold ground that her statement was not

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.

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


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


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

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


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


(Rajasekhar Mantha, 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