BITHIKA CHAKRABORTY Vs. KAMAL KANTI BISWAS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The order dtd. 3/9/2016 passed by the Judicial Magistrate, 4th court at Barrackpore, North 24 Parganas, in Complaint Case No. 19 of 2007, is under challenge in this revision, filed by the petitioner, under Sec. 482 of the CrPC. The present petitioner, that is, the accused person in the said complaint case, filed in the trial Court, his prayer for discharge, vide his application dated 22. 3. 2016. The same was disposed of by the trial Court vide the impugned order dtd. 3/9/2016 for the reason inter alia that the materials on evidence as well as that on record had disclosed sufficiently to proceed against the present petitioner/accused person. Thus the petitioner was aggrieved and has challenged the said impugned order in this revision.

(2.) In this case, while adjudicating to decide whether the petitioner would have been entitled under the law, for an order of discharge, this Court would delve upon the points, firstly, as to whether the previous order of the Coordinate Bench rejecting petitioner 's prayer for quashing of the criminal proceeding against him, should act as a debarring factor to go into the prayer of the petitioner in this case, which is virtually the same as that in his previous case. Then, whether there has been so compelling change in circumstances, after the previous order of the Coordinate Bench rejecting petitioner 's prayer for quashing of the criminal proceeding, to be taken into consideration, to assess his prayer in this case, which is virtually similar to that in the previous case. The Court will see if the nonproduction of any vital document/information, said to have prompted the Coordinate Bench previously, to consider petitioner 's case, not in its proper perspective, and if the same should again be considered in this case, to weigh if the petitioner would have been eligible for an order of discharge as the evidence and materials would not have made out a case against him. The court shall consider, if petitioner 's case is comprised with the questions of facts only, legible to be decided in a trial.

(3.) Since this case is germane to an order of the trial Court under Sec. 245 of the CrPC, at the threshold the said provision may be extracted: