Shyam Kumar Saha vs State

Learned advocate, Mr. Binoy Kumar Panda, representing the State is present pursuant to the order of this Court recorded on 27.07.2018.

Affidavit-of-service filed by the revisionist be kept on record. Learned advocate for the revisionist submits that unless the case of the revisionist is made to split so as to commence trial, the revisionist accused is unnecessarily subjected to face his prejudice. Thus according to revisionist during the pendency of this case, the revisionist accused is not getting any employment anywhere including the government post. The charge-sheet against the accused person has already been submitted on 17.11.2014 making out a case under Sections 498A/323/325/420/34 of the Indian Penal Code read with Sections 3/ 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act.

The contention surfaces at the moment is the delay caused to exhaust the process involved, necessarily to be observed by Court, in paving the way for commencement of trial.

Learned advocate representing the State submits that the learned court below is about to exhaust the process so as to go ahead with the trial after framing of charge. The father of the revisionist is made one of the co-accused in this case, who is admittedly, absconding at the moment. Warrant of Arrest is pending against the absconding father of the revisionist. To frame the charge, the required stages involved as contained in the Code of Criminal Procedure, like Sections 82 and 83, if necessary, has to be followed by the learned court below. Adherence to such section appears to be a crying need so far as stages to be exhausted for framing of charge against the accused persons. In a situation like this, a blanket order allowing split up, as suggested by the revisionist, should not be passed by this Court keeping in view the other context of the law at this stage. However, the revisional application can be effectively disposed of by following direction and such direction appears to be of highest importance in this case for the ends of justice.

Learned A.C.J.M., Krishnagar, is directed to exhaust the process, as contained in the Code of Criminal Procedure after adhering to strict compliance of Sections 82 and 83 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, to come to the next stage for framing of charge and thereby paving the way for the commencement of the trial. Such direction should be followed without granting unnecessary adjournment, unless it is avoidable treating the same as peremptory and mandatory.

With this observation, the revisional application stands disposed of.

Urgent certified photostat copy of this order, if applied for, shall be given to the parties as expeditiously as possible on compliance of all necessary formalities.