Research › Search › Judgment

Calcutta High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 231 (CAL)

Md. Momin Molla v. Abul Khair Molla

2012-03-20

PRASENJIT MANDAL

body2012
Judgment Prasenjit Mandal, J. 1. THIS application is directed against the judgment and order dated February 7, 2011 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, 8th Fast Track Court, Alipore in Criminal Motion No.263 of 2003 thereby dismissing the said criminal motion on contest without cost. 2. THE short fact involved in the matter is that whether the learned Judicial Magistrate, 7th Court, Alipore, was justified in rejecting the prayer made in the application dated August 1, 2006 2 of the complainant and thereby directing the complainant to pay the requisite revenue fees of the disputed document in accordance with law as per order dated December 24, 2004 in Complaint Case No.209 of 2002. Upon hearing the learned Advocate for the petitioner and on perusal of the materials-on-record, the Revisional Court has held that the criminal motion is devoid of merits and the complainant is required to pay the requisite revenue fees of the disputed document as per order dated December 24, 2004. Being aggrieved, this application has been preferred. 3. THE opposite party No.1 herein filed the said complaint case under Section 420 of the IPC against the petitioner under Section 200 of the Cr. P.C. THE learned Magistrate recorded evidence on S/A and accordingly issued process against the petitioner under Section 420 of the IPC. 4. EVIDENCE before charge was being recorded and at that time the complainant/opposite party No.1 herein filed a document over which, by the order dated December 24, 2000, the complainant was directed to pay the requisite revenue fees for the said document. Subsequently, the application dated August 1, 2006 filed by the complainant was rejected and he was directed to pay the requisite revenue fees as per order dated December 12, 2004. The learned Trial Judge fixed the next date, that is, on June 23, 2009 for examination of the P.W.1 before charge. It may be recorded herein that the evidence before charge was being recorded and as such the document in question could not be marked Exhibit unless the proper revenue fees were paid. The order dated December 24, 2004 is not under challenge before any Court and since the complaint case was at the stage of recording evidence before charge, the learned Judicial Magistrate passed the order dated April 13, 2009 directing the complainant to pay the requisite revenue fees, of course, after delay for some days. The order dated December 24, 2004 is not under challenge before any Court and since the complaint case was at the stage of recording evidence before charge, the learned Judicial Magistrate passed the order dated April 13, 2009 directing the complainant to pay the requisite revenue fees, of course, after delay for some days. Anyway, the said complaint case was at the stage of recording the evidence before charge and so I am of the view that the learned Trial Judge was justified in passing the order dated April 13, 2009. Consequently, the Revisional Court has rightly rejected the criminal motion moved by the accused petitioner. The impugned order does not suffer from illegality, impropriety or incorrectness. So, there is no scope of interference with the impugned order. 5. THE learned Advocate for the petitioner submits that the complainant/opposite party No.1 herein filed another case under Section 156(3) of the Cr.P.C. over the selfsame fact and the dispute is of the civil nature. This criminal revision case is not on those grounds. Those matters may be considered by the learned concerned Magistrate at the appropriate stage, that is, at the time of consideration of charge if materials are placed, and I find that those matters were not agitated before the learned 4 Judicial Magistrate. So, the learned Judicial Magistrate may take care at the appropriate stage as indicated above. So, at present there is no scope of interference with the impugned order. THE criminal revision is, therefore, dismissed. 6. CONSIDERING the circumstance, there will be no order as to costs. C.R.A.N. No.1236 OF 2011:- This application has been filed for extension of the interim order. In view of the above order, the application having become infructuous, the same stands rejected. Urgent xerox certified copy of this order, if applied for, be supplied to the learned Advocate for the parties on their usual undertaking.