SUJOY LAHIRI Vs. SM. NANDINI LAHIRI & ANR.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this application under the scheme of Articles 227 of the Constitution of India the petitioner has prayed for recalling of the order dated 05.01.2016 passed by this Court and to quash the FIR dated 01.03.2009 being Chandannagar Police Station Case No.35 of 2009 under Sections 498A, 406/120B of Indian Penal Code.

(2.) For quashing the proceeding and FIR aforesaid, the petitioner had filed CRR No.2979 of 2013. It is revealed from the order dated 05.01.2016 that since none had appeared on call the matter was taken up for disposal on the merit of the revisional application and this Court was of the view on perusal of the impugned order of the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Chandannagar that where there is sufficient materials for framing of charge against accused persons, there is no scope for discharging the accused persons from the case and accordingly CRR 2979 of 2013 was dismissed on its merit.

(3.) The said order has been sought to be recalled by the petitioner by filing present application on the contention that the said case was listed before the Hon'ble Justice Asim Kumar Roy on 27.08.2013 when the petitioner was directed to serve a copy of the application along with annexure upon the Opposite Parties and the matter was adjourned till 6th September, 2013 and the same was complied with thereafter the matter appeared in the list for hearing but the said matter came up for hearing before this Court after 3 years when learned Advocate on record could not keep track of events and overlooked the same. It is contended that due to non-appearance of the parties, this Court was pleased to pass the order dismissing the application on its merit without giving verdict on the core issue in the case relating to jurisdiction as the petitioner had filed application regarding territorial jurisdiction before the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Chandannagar which application was dismissed by the impugned order dated 22.02.2013 on the finding that the court had no inherent power to quash and/or discharge the accused persons on the ground of territorial jurisdiction. So, the petitioner preferred the criminal revision for application of its inherent jurisdiction for quashment of the proceeding.