Mrinal Kanti Sinha, J. - (1.) THIS revisional application under Section 401 read with Section 483 of the Code of Criminal Procedure has been filed by the petitioner praying for an appropriate order and direction for expeditious trial of G.R. case No. 1666/2004 now pending before the court of learned 8th Metropolitan Magistrate at Calcutta.
(2.) IT is the case of the petitioner that he is the defacto-complainant of G.R. case No. 1666/2004 now pending before the Court of learned 8th Metropolitan Magistrate at Calcutta and the opposite parties No. 2 to 6 are the co-owners/ cooccupants of their ancestral property situated at 12B, Nanda Mullick Lane, Kolkatta ? 700 006. In between 19.10.2004 and 27.10.2004 the opposite parties No. 2 to 6/accused persons entered into a criminal conspiracy, trespassed into the rooms of the petitioner by breaking the padlock and committed theft of his household items worth about Rs. 80,000/-. On the basis of his application under Section 156(3) of the Criminal Procedure Code complaint case No. C/1112/2004 before the Learned Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Calcutta, arising out of Girish Park Police Station case No. 141 dated 11.12.2004 under Sections 448/454/380/120B of the Indian Penal Code, was registered, and Officer-in-charge of said police station was directed to investigate into the matter by the learned Court. The petitioner has appeared in the said case for about 23 days from 11.8.2005 to 25.3.2010, and the next date has been fixed on 7th May, 2010, for further cross-examination of P.W. ?1 or the defactocomplainant. The opposite parties No. 2 to 6 duly appeared before the learned Court below, but they are taking time one after another on different grounds for which the cross-examination of P.W. ?1 has not been completed. The petitioner along with his family members have been dispossessed by the opposite parties No. 2 to 6 and they are occupying the rooms of the petitioner as trespassers, and the learned Court below should be directed to conclude the trial of the said G.R. case No. 1666/2004 expeditiously preferably within a period of three months from the date of passing of the order, otherwise the petitioner will suffer irreparable loss and injury. It appears from the certified copy of the order dated 29.8.2005 of G.R. case No. 1666/2004 that on the basis of a complaint of the petitioner under Section 156(3) of the Criminal Procedure Code, which was treated as First Information Report, Girish Park Police Station case No. 141 dated 11.12.2004 was started and police investigated into the case and submitted charge sheet against the accused persons under Sections 448/120B of the Indian Penal Code along with list of documents and cognizance was taken and summons was issued by the learned Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Calcutta, fixing 10.01.2006 for S.R. and appearance. On 10.01.2006 accused persons were absent by petition and prayed for time. Then on 21.02.2006 of the accused persons were present and copy was supplied to them and date was fixed on 28.3.2006 for charge by the learned 8th Metropolitan Magistrate, Calcutta to whom the said G.R. case was transferred, and vide order dated 20.12.2006 substance of accusation under Sections 448/120B of the Indian Penal code to the effect that in between 19.10.2004 and 27.10.2004 the accused persons entered into a criminal conspiracy and thereby trespassed into the rooms of the complainant and took away some household items, was read over and explained to the accused persons by the learned Magistrate concerned to which they pleaded not guilty by saying ? nirdosh ? and claimed to be tried, and order was passed then for issuance of summons to C.S.Ws 1 to 6 fixing 13.02.2007 for evidence, and on 13.02. 2007 the accused persons and C.S.W ?1 was present and he was examined in part and his examination was deferred till 20.3.2007 for further evidence, and thereafter the hearing of the said G.R. case was adjourned from 20.3.2007 to 6.6.2007, 21.7.2007, 20.8.2007, 14.12.2007, 23.4.2008, 5.8.2008, 7.01.2009, 16.02.2009, 29.5.2009, 22.9.2009, 23.11.2009 and 4.01.2010 for evidence as some of the accused persons were absent by petition and prayed for adjournment on the aforesaid dates, though all the accused persons appeared before the said Court in the mean time. The opposite party No.1 State of West Bengal has appeared in this matter, but has not filed any affidavit-in-opposition while other opposite parties have neither appeared in this matter nor have filed any affidavit-in-opposition.
(3.) IT is to be considered in this case as to whether the learned 8th Metropolitan Magistrate Court, Calcutta was legal, correct and justified or not in conducting the trial of the said G.R. case No. 1666/2004 in the way as alleged by the present petitioner. Ms. Arpita Chatterjee, learned Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that G.R. case No. 1666/2004 has been initiated at the instance of the petitioner as defacto-complainant, but long delay is being caused in the trial of the case, and taking advantage of that the private opposite parties No. 2 to 6 have trespassed into his rooms and are taking away his articles and he is suffering much as the trial of the said G.R. case is not being expedited, for which he has prayed for expeditious trial of the G.R. case as per the provision of Section 483 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.;