Amit Talukdar, J. - (1.) Against an order dated 4.8.99 passed by the learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Howrah ( Sadar) in G. R. Case No. 1035/97 thereby discharging the Accused/Opposite Party No. 2 from the case, this Revisional Application has been taken out on behalf of the Petitioner who is the Complainant in this Case. The grievance of the Petitioner being that the Order of discharge recorded by the learned Magistrate should not have been passed as the Opposite Party No. 2 was very much involved and charge ought to have been framed against him also. It has been further canvassed that the Investigation was done perfunctorily screening the Opposite Party No. 2. Great stress was laid on the fact that notwithstanding the confinement of the Petitioner was in hospital since 3.6.97 to 15.7.97 for over 42 days her statement under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure was not recorded by the Investigating Agency and at the time of framing of charge the learned Magistrate entered into a meticulous discussion of the materials and erroneously passed the Order of discharge which he should not have otherwise done so.
(2.) Controverting all the issues raised on behalf of the Petitioner it was contended on behalf of the Opposite Party No. 2 that the learned Magistrate rightly passed the Order of discharge as there are no sufficient materials to warrant framing of charge, it was also highlighted that the Opposite Party No. 2 was falsely roped in at the instance of the Petitioner and as there were absolutely no materials, the Order impuaned should be left undisturbed.
(3.) On behalf of the State the line taken up by the Petitioner was adopted. The Case Diary was also made available for perusal of this Court.;