Priyanka Singh v. State Of West Bengal

NB 24.11.2021 CRR 2336 of 2021 Ct. No. 39 In the matter of:- Priyanka Singh ...petitioner Mr. Kallol Mondal, Mr. Kishan Ray, Ms. Amrita Chel, Mr. Souvik Das, Ms. A. Banerjee.

...for the petitioner.

Mr. Imran Ali, Mr. Sujoy Sarkar.

....for the State.

This is an application seeking expeditious disposal of a proceeding in which a charge sheet was submitted under Section 302 of Penal Code and Sections 25(1A), 27 and 35 of the Arms Act. Let a copy of this application be served upon Mr. Imran Ali and Mr. Sujoy Sarkar, learned Counsels who ordinarily appear on behalf of the State. Let them represent the State. 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. The petitioner is the widow of the victim deceased who was brutally murdered by the accused. The petitioner lodged a First Information Report on 29.12.2020. After submission of charge sheet, the matter was committed before the learned Trial Court on 09.06.2021. After that several dates were fixed.

But, charges could not be framed. The accuseds have tried to delay the proceeding on some pretext or the other. On one occasion, an application was made before the learned Trial Court to have a room arranged for trial, which can accommodate at least 15 to 20 lawyers. Although, the learned Trial Court tried to fix the dates as early as possible, but no effective result could be obtained. The matter has remained pending for no fault of the present petitioner.

Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the State submits as follows. It does not appear that an inordinate delay has been caused in this matter. Learned Trial Court has fixed dates regularly. However, it is true that the defence seems to have come up with frivolous applications. This contributed to the delay, if any.

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

It does not appear that an inordinate delay has been caused in this case. The learned Trial Court tried to fix short dates for hearing of the case.

However, for some reason or the other, the consideration of charge could not taken place. It is also true that at least one application filed on behalf of the defence to make arrangement for a room for a good number of lawyers seems to be quite frivolous.

In view of the above and in the interest of justice, the learned Trial Court is requested to conclude the trial as expeditiously as possible without granting any unnecessary adjournment to any of the parties and more particularly, to decide the question of framing of charge at the earliest, preferably within a period of two months from the next date. With the above 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.)