PRASANT KUMAR DAW Vs. STATE OF WEST BENGAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revisional application under Section 401 read with Section 483 of the Code of Criminal Procedure has been filed by the petitioner praying for an appropriate order and direction for expeditious trial of G.R. case No. 1666/2004 now pending before the court of learned 8th Metropolitan Magistrate at Calcutta.

(2.) IT is the case of the petitioner that he is the defacto-complainant of G.R. case No. 1666/2004 now pending before the Court of learned 8th Metropolitan Magistrate at Calcutta and the opposite parties No. 2 to 6 are the co-owners/ cooccupants of their ancestral property situated at 12B, Nanda Mullick Lane, Kolkatta ? 700 006. In between 19.10.2004 and 27.10.2004 the opposite parties No. 2 to 6/accused persons entered into a criminal conspiracy, trespassed into the rooms of the petitioner by breaking the padlock and committed theft of his household items worth about Rs. 80,000/-. On the basis of his application under Section 156(3) of the Criminal Procedure Code complaint case No. C/1112/2004 before the Learned Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Calcutta, arising out of Girish Park Police Station case No. 141 dated 11.12.2004 under Sections 448/454/380/120B of the Indian Penal Code, was registered, and Officer-in-charge of said police station was directed to investigate into the matter by the learned Court. The petitioner has appeared in the said case for about 23 days from 11.8.2005 to 25.3.2010, and the next date has been fixed on 7th May, 2010, for further cross-examination of P.W. ?1 or the defactocomplainant. The opposite parties No. 2 to 6 duly appeared before the learned Court below, but they are taking time one after another on different grounds for which the cross-examination of P.W. ?1 has not been completed. The petitioner along with his family members have been dispossessed by the opposite parties No. 2 to 6 and they are occupying the rooms of the petitioner as trespassers, and the learned Court below should be directed to conclude the trial of the said G.R. case No. 1666/2004 expeditiously preferably within a period of three months from the date of passing of the order, otherwise the petitioner will suffer irreparable loss and injury.

(3.) IT is to be considered in this case as to whether the learned 8th Metropolitan Magistrate Court, Calcutta was legal, correct and justified or not in conducting the trial of the said G.R. case No. 1666/2004 in the way as alleged by the present petitioner.