RABBANI KHANAM Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present hearing arises out of an application for recalling and/or modification and/or setting aside of the order dated May, 21st, 2004 passed by me disposing an application under. Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, which was registered as C.R.R. 243/2003.

(2.) Shortly put the facts and circumstances leading to the filing of the instant application are as follows : The petitioners filed the application under Section 482 of the Code with a prayer for quashing of the criminal proceedings in Park Street PS. Case No. 126 dated 19.4.2001 (G.R. Case No. 1190 of 2001). On the basis of the application under Section 482, the learned Single Judge of this Court passed the first order on 19.2.03 directing the learned Counsel for the petitioners to give notice to the O.P. within six weeks and with a further direction to list the application after 15 days of notice. The said order further disclosed that till that time all further proceeding in G.R. Case No. 1190 of 2001 pending before the 9th Metropolitan Magistrate, Calcutta was stayed. The next order was made on 7.3.2003 when the learned Single Judge indicated that the matter was heard in part and directed the matter to be listed on 10.3.2003 and extended the interim order earlier granted till that time. On 10.3.2003 record shows that the learned Counsel for the petitioner was present and the learned Judge directed the matter to be listed next day and further indicated in the order that the interim order earlier granted should continue. On the next day that is to say 11.3.2003 leave was given to the learned Counsel for the petitioners to amend the cause title of the petition so as to implead the complainant as O.P. and also directed to give notice to the complainant/O.P. within 7 days from that day and to file affidavit of service. The learned Single Judge directed the matter to be listed after two weeks for motion. The order dated 11.3.2003 further indicated that meanwhile interim order earlier passed fwould continue. The order dated 31.3.2003 indicated that the learned Counsel for the petitioners and the State/O.R were present but there was none for the de facto complainant. The learned Single Judge directed the matter to be listed on 3.4.2003, further indicating that the interim ordqr passed earlier should continue. Next order dated 17.4.2003 indicates that the learned Single Judge directed the matter to come up for hearing as a contested application four weeks hence. He further directed the petitioners to serve copy of the application upon the State, service through the learned Public Prosecutor, High Court and to file affidavit of service at the time of hearing. The said order further indicated that till disposal of the application, stay granted on 19.2.2003 would continue. Thereafter the matter was listed before me and record goes to indicate that on 7.5.2004, 14.5.2004 none appear for "any of the parties. Finally the matter was adjourned till the next sitting of the Bench and on 21.5.2004 the learned Counsel for the de facto complainant O.P. 2 and also for the O.P./State were present. But none appeared on behalf of the petitioners even that day. In that background, the matter was heard and on consideration of the merits I dismissed the application and vacated the interim order.

(3.) Now through this application, the petitioners have alleged in Para-10 that on or about second week of June, 2004 they heard the rumours in the locality and from few tenants of their building that they would be arrested in few days. Further enquiry revealed that source of such rumours was the de facto complainant. Then the petitioners caused searches in the Court of learned 9th Metropolitan Magistrate, Calcutta but could not find anything and thereafter they contacted the learned Advocate in this Court and the learned Advocate by filing an inspection slip came to know that the said application had already been dismissed after considering the case of the petitioners in their absence. it is the case of the petitioners that on the relevant dates that is to say 7th May, 2004 and 14th May, 2004 and 21st May, 2004 the matter appeared with a wrong cause title in the cause list. it is their specific case that the name of the petitioner No. 1 was printed as Musammad Rabbani Khatun, in place of her correct name which was given in the application as Mst. Rabbani Khanam. it is the further case of the petitioner that on all the aforesaid dates when the matter was listed, note was also printed at the bottom of the relevant page of the cause list to the effect that files were lying in D.R. (Court) chamber. In this background, the petitioners could not take any step and none appeared on behalf of the petitioner when the matter was disposed of by the order dated 21st May, 2004.