IN THE MATTER OF : JHARNA GANGULY Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Mr. Ganguly, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioner is present. Affidavit of service filed by the learned advocate be kept with the record. 'Vakalatnama' filed by the learned advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioner also be kept with record. It appears from the affidavit of service that the notice was sought to be served on the opposite party by registered speed post with acknowledgement due dispatched on 07-04-2011. None is appearing on behalf of the opposite party on repeated calls. Since it is a matter of 2009, this Court feels it proper to dispose of the same because the trial in the court of the Ld. Magistrate has been stalled for quite a long period owing to this application.

(2.) The question raised in this application is whether the order dated 21-11-08 passed by the Ld. Additional District and Sessions Judge, Fast Track, 3rd Court, Calcutta in Criminal Case No. 69 of 2008 thereby affirming the order of Ld. Metropolitan Magistrate, 8th Court in Case No. C-87 of 2007 under sections 454/380/504/506 (II) of the Indian Penal Code is sustainable in law.

(3.) This petitioner initiated a criminal proceeding against Chatali Ganguly and the trial commenced in course of time by the Ld. Metropolitan Magistrate, 8th Court, Calcutta. The Ld. Magistrate recorded the evidence of P. W.1, Minakshi Pal whose cross-examination before the framing of charges was declined. Three months thereafter, the petitioner Smt. Jharna Ganguly has taken out an application under section 311 Cr. P. C to recall Meenakshi Pal(P. W.1) as the court failed to record correct deposition of Meenakshi Pal. The Ld. Magistrate rejected the prayer with the some observation and that order was upheld by the Ld. Additional District and Sessions Judge, F. T. C - 3, Bichar Bhavan, Calcutta in Criminal Revision No. 69/08.