Sandhya Giri v. State Of West Bengal & ORS

jks 17.12.2025 CRR 3190 of 2018 Sandhya Giri Vs.

The State of West Bengal & Ors.

Mr. Joydeep Roy Mr. Dattatreya Dutta ... ... for the State

1. The matter is taken up for hearing.

2. Notwithstanding the report of the Assistant Registrar XII dated 3rd December 2025, which confirms the successful service of administrative notices, the petitioner and the private opposite party nos. 2 to 10 remain unrepresented.

3. Mr. Joydeep Roy, learned Advocate, appears and represents the State/Opposite Party No. 1.

4. The continued absence of the petitioner suggests a clear abandonment of the cause. However, in the interest of justice and to prevent the stagnation of a criminal proceeding dating back to 2017, this Court deems it appropriate to adjudicate the application on its merits based on the materials available on record.

5. This revisional application, filed under Section 401 read with Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, is directed against the order dated 15th September 2018 passed by the learned

Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Dantan, Paschim Medinipur. By the said order, the learned Magistrate rejected the petitioner's prayer for further investigation in connection with Belda P.S. Case No. 46 of 2017 (corresponding to G.R. No. 685 of 2017) under Sections 447/323/325/427/34 of the Indian Penal Code.

6. Records reveal that the investigating agency, upon conclusion of its probe, submitted a statutory charge-sheet against the private opposite parties. The petitioner, as the de facto complainant, challenged the adequacy of the investigation and sought further probe. Upon a thorough review of the prayer and the materials then available, the learned Trial Court arrived at the conclusion that no further investigation was warranted.

7. In the exercise of revisional jurisdiction, this Court is primarily concerned with the legality, propriety, and correctness of the impugned order. Having scrutinized the records, I find that the learned Magistrate's refusal to direct further investigation does not suffer from any jurisdictional error, perversity, or patent illegality. The order is a reasoned one and does not call for any interference by this Court.

8.

Consequently, the revisional application is dismissed.

9. The interim order, if any, granted earlier in this proceeding stands automatically vacated.

10.

In view of the fact that the proceedings have remained pending for a considerable period, the learned Trial Court is directed to proceed with the trial with utmost expedition and take all necessary steps to bring the matter to its logical conclusion in accordance with the law, without being influenced by any observations made herein regarding the merits of the evidence.

11. A copy of this order be communicated to the Court of the learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Dantan, Paschim Medinipur, for information and necessary action.

12.

All parties shall act on the server copy of this order duly downloaded from the official website of this Court.

(Uday Kumar, J.)