PRASANTA KARMAKAR Vs. STATE OF WEST BENGAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner has preferred this revision under Section 401 read with Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure challenging the order dated May 24, 2013 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate, 5th Court, Alipore in Case No. C-06 of 1999, by which learned Magistrate refused to discharge the petitioner under Section 245(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

(2.) The petitioner-Ratan Karmakar died during the pendency of the revision. On September 24, 2015 learned Single Judge of this Court permitted the applicants -Prasanta Karmakar and Kanika Karmakar to step into the shoes of the petitioner-Ratan Karmakar for continuation of hearing of the revision. Accordingly, the petitioner-Prasanta Karmkar and the petitioner-Kanika Karmakar have now challenged the order dated May 24, 2013 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate, 5th Court, Alipore in connection with C-06 of 1999. It is relevant to point out that the application being CRAN 3985 of 2015 filed by the Opposite Party No.2 is not listed for hearing on this day. On the consent of learned counsel representing both parties the said application being CRAN 3985 of 2015 is treated as on day's list for the purpose of hearing along with revision. The original application being CRAN 3985 of 2015 is not available on record and as such I have acted on the copy of the application supplied by learned counsel for the Opposite Party No.2. By this application the Opposite Party No.2 has prayed for expeditious disposal of Case No. C-06 of 1999 pending before the court of learned Judicial Magistrate, 5th Court, Alipore.

(3.) It appears from record that the Opposite Party No.2 filed a petition of complaint before the court of learned Magistrate against three accused persons including the present petitioners-Prasanta Karmakar and Kanika Karmakar for issuance of process against them under Sections 406/120B/34 of the Indian Penal Code. It appears from record that learned Magistrate issued process against all the accused persons including the present petitioners. Both the petitioners appeared before the trial court on November 6, 1999. It appears from the impugned order under challenge in the revision that on May 20, 2010 the present petitioners filed an application before the court of learned Magistrate praying for discharge and the said application was rejected by learned Magistrate on May 26, 2010. It further appears from the said order that the Opposite Party No.2 being the complainant of the criminal case examined eleven witnesses in support of her case and filed an application under Section 311 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for recalling P. W. 1 which was allowed by learned Magistrate on May 24, 2013. However, learned Magistrate refused to discharge the petitioners under Section 245(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure on consideration of the volume of evidence adduced by the Opposite Party No.2 before consideration of charge against the petitioners.