- (1.) THE petitioner herein Asraf Ali Munsi is present personally and submits that he suffering for last one and half year as his Advocate is not co-operating him and, as such, he wants to make submission personally.
(2.) LEAVE is granted. Mr. Shyama Prasad Purkeit, learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the opposite parties are present. Mr. Ghosh, learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the State is also present. This revisional application is pertaining to a case being Sonarpur Police Station Case No.343 dated 27.7.2009 (G. R. Case No.1729 of 2009) initiated by the petitioner herein Asraf Ali Munsi. The case was ultimately ended in a charge sheet or a prosecution report against Amirul Islam and others. On 1.3.2010, this petitioner being the defacto complainant of the case had taken out an application praying for further investigation of the case by the Officer-in-charge of Sonarpur Police Station. That petition was kept with the record and the learned Magistrate fixed date for hearing of the accused persons, i.e., Amirul Islam and others under Section 251 of the Cr. P. C. The application so filed by the present petitioner on 1.3.2010 was disposed of on 16.5.2011 by the learned Trial Court. The petitioner has challenged the legality, validity and propriety of the order dated 17.6.2010 which goes like below; Order dated 17.6.2011. Defacto complainant and accused are present. Hd. Both sides. Fix 26.4.2011 for plea. The learned Magistrate vide its order dated 16.5.2011 was pleased to reject the application of the present petitioner dated 1.3.2010 as well as an application dated 5.3.2010.
(3.) THE petitioner herein has not challenged that order. To be stated precisely, the order dated 17.6.2010 is not in force because the learned Court fixed 21.9.2011 for hearing of the accused persons under Section 251 of the Cr. P. C. THE order dated 17.6.2011 does not say anything about the application taken out by the present petitioner for further investigation into the case or by that order, the learned Court did not dispose of the application taken out by the present petitioner. It was a routine order and in fact, lost its force by virtue of order dated 16.5.2011 whereby the learned Court disposed of the application taken out by the petitioner praying for further investigation by the Officer-in-charge of Sonarpur Police Station and fixed a specific date for examination of the accused under Section 251 of the Cr. P. C. Therefore, I find that this revisional application has lost its force and become infractuous. However, the petitioner has obviously right to challenge the order dated 16.5.2011. But, that has not been done. By filing a supplementary affidavit (not found on record), the petitioner has drawn attention of this Court (from the copy served on the opposite parties) that the Officer-in-charge Sonarpur Police Station prayed for prosecuting the defacto complainant, i.e., the petitioner herein under Section 182/211 of the I.P.C. He also draws attention of the Court that was done without giving him any opportunity of being heard. He also submits that he also received notice from the Court. This Court finds that particular episode which has been reflected or sought to be reflected in the supplementary affidavit has got no connection with this case. It is simply different and distinct proceeding initiated by the police against the petitioner wherein he has been made an accused for some specific offence and he has been served with the notice by the Court also. He is, therefore, at liberty to agitate his grievance in connection with that matter before the learned Trial Court.;