R.K.BAG,J. - (1.) The petitioner has preferred this criminal revision challenging the order dated 16th July, 2013 passed by learned Chief Judge, City Sessions Court, in Criminal Revision No.60 of 2013, whereby learned Judge of the court below set aside the order dated 4th April, 2013 passed by learned Metropolitan Magistrate, 13th Court, Calcutta in Case No.C-23839 of 2011 under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881.
(2.) It appears from the materials on record that the opposite party no.4 started a criminal proceeding against the petitioner and the opposite parties no.1 to 3 on the allegation of committing offence under Section 138/141 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 before the Court of learned Metropolitan Magistrate, 13th Court, Calcutta. It also appears from record that the opposite party no.4 being the complainant filed an application under section 257 of the Code of Criminal Procedure before the court of learned Magistrate for withdrawal of the complainant against the present petitioner and learned Magistrate allowed the said application on 4th April, 2013. It appears from the order dated 4th April, 2013 passed by learned Magistrate in the said complaint case that the complainant is permitted to withdraw the complaint against the present petitioner and he is acquitted of the charge. This order of learned Magistrate was challenged by the co-accused persons by filing criminal revision no.60 of 2013 before the learned Chief Judge, City Sessions Court, Calcutta. It appears from the judgement and order dated 16th July, 2013 passed by learned Chief Judge, City Sessions Court, Calcutta, in the said criminal revision no.60 of 2013 that learned Chief Judge set aside the order of learned Magistrate on the ground that the complainant cannot withdraw the complaint in a piecemeal manner against a particular accused person when other co-accused persons are facing the trial on the allegation of committing offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881.
(3.) With the above factual matrix, Mr. Ayan Bhattacharya, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that the complainant has the right to withdraw the complaint against all or any of the accused persons as laid down in section 257 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. Mr. Bhattacharya also submits that the present petitioner being the accused no.4 in the petition of complaint is a Director of the company against whom specific averments are not made in the petition of complaint about the transaction of the business of the company and as such, the other co-accused persons cannot be prejudiced if the complaint is withdrawn by the complainant against the present petitioner. According to Mr. Bhattacharya, learned Chief Judge, City Sessions Court, Calcutta, acted illegally without considering the provisions of section 257 of the Code of Criminal Procedure in its proper perspective.;