Research › Search › Judgment

Calcutta High Court · body

2020 DIGILAW 421 (CAL)

Radha Nath Nandy v. State Of West Bengal

2020-03-12

JAY SENGUPTA

body2020
JUDGMENT Jay Sengupta, J. - This is an application challenging the order 14.01.2020 passed by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bidhannagar, in Case No.C/727 of 2015 thereby dismissing the said case and directing formal acquittal of the accused in view of the judgment of the High Court as not interfered with by the Hon''ble Supreme Court. 2. Supplementary affidavit filed on behalf of the petitioner is taken on record. 3. The petitioner appearing-in-person submits as follows. The petitioner is the complainant in the present proceeding. After the main proceeding was quashed by the High Court by an order dated 25.08.2017 passed in CRR 3950 of 2016, he filed a Special Leave to Appeal against the same before the Hon''ble Supreme Court. By an order dated 05.03.2018 passed in Special Leave to Appeal (CRL.) No.8342 of 2017, the Hon''ble Apex Court was pleased to dismiss the Special Leave Petition. The learned trial court dropped the proceeding and directed the formal acquittal of the accused in view of the order of the High Court. However, the appellant had also made a prayer under section 340 of the Code alleging commission of forgery by the accused/opposite party. The same was turned down by the learned trial court. Challenging the same, an appeal was preferred by the present petitioner which led to the registration of the appeal under section 341 of the Code, being CRA 567 of 2019. The same is still pending. Therefore, the parent proceeding should be kept alive till the said appeal is disposed of. 4. I have heard the submissions of the petitioner appearing in person and have perused the revision petition and the supplementary affidavit filed on behalf of the petitioner. 5. It is true that an appeal preferred under section 341 of the Code by the present petitioner in respect of the proceeding before the learned trial court is still pending. However, the parent proceeding before the learned trial court under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act has been quashed by this Court and the Special Leave Petition filed against such order was dismissed by the Hon''ble Apex Court. Therefore, the order quashing the proceeding has reached its finality. Hence, the quashed proceeding cannot be rekindled and kept alive simply because an appeal under section 341 of the Code is pending. 6. As such, I do not find any illegality in the impugned order. Therefore, the order quashing the proceeding has reached its finality. Hence, the quashed proceeding cannot be rekindled and kept alive simply because an appeal under section 341 of the Code is pending. 6. As such, I do not find any illegality in the impugned order. Accordingly, the revisional application is dismissed. 7. However, there shall be no order as to costs. 8. Urgent photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for, is to be given to the parties upon usual undertakings.