SUKANTA ROY CHOWDHURY Vs. STATE OF WEST BENGAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present revisional application has been preferred challenging the continuance of the proceedings in S.C. case No. 48 of 2020 pending before the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track, 2nd Court, Hooghly, under Ss. 417/376/406 of the Indian Penal Code arising out of Chinsurah Police Station Case No. 115 of 2019 dtd. 4/6/2019 including the order dtd. 25/3/2021 passed by the learned Sessions Court.

(2.) The order dtd. 25/3/2021 relate to the order of framing of charges against the present petitioner under Sec. 417/376/406 of the Indian Penal Code wherein the learned Trial Court read over the charges and the accused/petitioner in response pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

(3.) Mr. Somopriyo Chowdhury, learned Advocate appearing for the accused/petitioner drew the attention of the Court to the First Information Report (along with the letter of complaint), charge-sheet and the statement of the victim under Sec. 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. It was submitted that the petitioner is aged about 46 years, divorced with a girl child aged about 12 years and the de facto complainant/lady is aged about 37 years with also a girl child of 12 years and her divorce case is pending before the jurisdictional Court. According to the learned Advocate even if the allegations made in the FIR, charge-sheet and all the documents relied upon by the prosecution as a whole are accepted in its entirety the same fails to make out any case and the learned Trial Court erroneously framed charges against the petitioner under Sec. 417/376/406 of the Indian Penal Code. In order to substantiate his argument learned Advocate relied upon Prasanta Bharti -Vs. - State (NCT of Delhi) reported in (2013) 9 SCC 293; Pramod Suryabhan Pawar - Vs. - State of Maharashtra reported in (2019) 9 SCC 608 and Dr. Dhruvaram Murlidhar Sonar -Vs. - State of Maharashtra reported in (2019) 18 SCC 191.