Sushil Kumar Singha v. State Of West Bengal & ANR.

NB 05.02.2021 CRR 442 of 2018 Ct. No. 32 In the matter of:- Sushil Kumar Singha ...petitioner Mr. Shamik Chatterjee.

...for the petitioner.

Mr. Prasun Kumar Datta, Md. Anwar Hossain.

...for the State.

Although this is an application for quashing of a proceeding in which a charge sheet was submitted under Section 420 of the Penal Code, the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that the petitioner would not like to press this application and would instead pray for an expeditious disposal of the proceeding.

Accordingly, the prayer for quashing is rejected as not pressed. Supplementary affidavit filed on behalf of the petitioner is taken on record.

Let a copy of this application be served upon Mr. Prasun Kumar Datta and Md. Anwar Hossain, learned Counsels who ordinarily appear on behalf of the State and who are present in Court today. Their engagement may be regularised by the competent authority of the State in due course. Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits as follows. Although the impugned proceeding was initiated in 2015 and in fact charges were framed on 2nd June, 2017, till date the proceeding has not been concluded. The present proceeding has remained pending for no fault on the part of the present petitioner.

Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the State submits that it would be in the interest of justice if a direction is passed to expedite the proceeding.

I have heard the submissions of the learned Counsels appearing on behalf of the petitioner and the State and have perused the revision petition and the supplementary affidavit.

No prejudice will be caused to anyone if a direction is passed for an expeditious disposal of the proceeding.

It appears that some delay has been occasioned in concluding the impugned proceeding.

In view of the above and in the interest of justice, I request the learned Trial Court to conclude the proceeding as expeditiously as possible without granting any unnecessary adjournment to any of the parties, preferably within a period of one year from the next date of hearing. With these observations, the revisional application is disposed of. Urgent photostat certified copy of this order may be supplied to the parties expeditiously, if applied for.

(Jay Sengupta, J.)