Research › Search › Judgment

Calcutta High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 30 (CAL)

Jasodhara Bagchi v. Joygopal Bhattacharya

2015-01-16

SAMAPTI CHATTERJEE

body2015
Judgment Samapti Chatterjee, J. 1. Despite affidavit of service no one appeared to oppose the application. 2. The petitioner filed the instant revisional application praying for setting aside the Order dated 9th January, 2012 passed by the Learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court-V at Barrackpore, Dist.- North 24 Parganas in Criminal Revision No.121 of 2011 and the Order dated 5th March, 2011 passed by the Learned Judicial Magistrate, 3rd Court at Barrackpore, Dist-North 24 Parganas in Case No.C992 of 2010 punishable under Sections 503/504/505/500/506 of the Indian Penal Code. 3. Mr. Kamalesh Chandra Saha, learned Advocate appearing for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner filed a petition of complaint against the opposite party under Section 200 of Criminal Procedure Code punishable under Sections 503/504/505/500/506 of the Indian Penal Code before the Learned Chief Judicial Magistrate at Barrackpore, Dist-North 24 Parganas. Subsequently, the said matter was transferred to the Learned Judicial Magistrate, 3rd Court at Barrackpore, North 24-Parganas for disposal. 4. Mr. Saha further submitted that it was the case of the petitioner that on 18th October, 2010 at about 8.30 P.M. when the members of the Netaji Sangha Club started the procession for immersion of Durga idol towards Gajirhat then near Nazrul Islam Sarani some members of Path Sebak Club obstructed the said procession. As a result some altercations took place between the members of the Path Sebak Club and the members of the Netaji Sangha Club who were in the procession for immersion of Durga idol. Upon receipt telephonic call from member of the Netaji Sangha Club the petitioner came to the spot and tried to control the altercation occurred between the members of the two clubs involved in the altercations. 5. Mr. Saha further contended that it was also the case of the petitioner that the petitioner was intentionally harassed and hackled by the opposite party and his associates with a motive to indulge in breach of peace. As a result the petitioner was compelled to file the Complaint Case No.C992 of 2010 before the Learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, 3rd Court, Barrackpore , North 24-Parganas. 6. Mr. Saha further urged that on 5th March, 2011 the Learned Judicial Magistrate, 3rd Court at Barrackpore, North 24-Parganas was pleased to dismiss the said Complaint Case under Section 203 of the Code of Criminal Procedure without complying the mandatory provisions of law laid down therein. 6. Mr. Saha further urged that on 5th March, 2011 the Learned Judicial Magistrate, 3rd Court at Barrackpore, North 24-Parganas was pleased to dismiss the said Complaint Case under Section 203 of the Code of Criminal Procedure without complying the mandatory provisions of law laid down therein. Against the said dismissal the petitioner preferred a revisional application before the Learned Sessions Judge at Barrackpore, North 24-Parganas, being Criminal Revisional Case No.121 of 2011 and the same was subsequently transferred to the Learned Additional Sessions Judge, FTC-V at Barrackpore, North 24-Parganas for disposal. 7. Mr. Saha further contended that the Learned Additional Sessions Judge without assigning any reason dismissed the said reivisional application thus mechanically affirmed the Order dated 5th March, 2011 passed by the Learned Judicial magistrate, 3rd Court at Barrackpore, North 24-Parganas. Assailing the said Order the petitioner filed the instant revisional application before this Hon’ble Court. In support of his contention Mr. Saha relied on a Judgment reported in 2004 C Cr. LR (Cal) Page-380 (Smt Nabanita Dutta Vs The State of West Bengal) and (2004) 11 Supreme Court Cases Page-622 (Bhagat Ram Vs Surinder Kumar and Others). 8. After considering the submissions made by Mr. Kamalesh Saha learned Advocate appearing for the petitioner and also after perusing the record, complaint as well as the statements I am of the opinion that the Learned Magistrate failed to exercise the jurisdiction and power under Sections 203 of the Code of Criminal Procedure at the time of dismissal of the said complaint whereby holding that the “ Ingredients of the offences punishable under Sections 500/504/505/506 of the Indian Penal Code as noted in the petition of complaint are found missing” without assigning any reason as required under Section 203 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Therefore, in my opinion, the impugned Orders cannot be sustained. 9. Hence, the impugned Order dated 9th January 2012 passed by the Learned Additional Sessions Judge at Barrackpore, North 24-Praganas in Criminal Revision No.121 of 2011 and also the Order dated 5th March, 2011 passed by the Learned Judicial Magistrate, 3rd Court at Barrackpore, North 24-Parganas in Complaint Case No.C992 of 2010 are hereby set aside. 10. Hence the CRR No.331 of 2012 is allowed. 11. I further direct the Learned Judicial Magistrate, 3rd Court at Barrackpore, North 24-Parganas to consider the said Complaint Case No.C992 of 2010 afresh in accordance with law. 12. 10. Hence the CRR No.331 of 2012 is allowed. 11. I further direct the Learned Judicial Magistrate, 3rd Court at Barrackpore, North 24-Parganas to consider the said Complaint Case No.C992 of 2010 afresh in accordance with law. 12. With the aforesaid directions, the revisional application is disposed of. 13. Photostat certified copy of the order, if applied for, be given to the parties on urgent basis.