- (1.) Both the above noted CRRs, that is 1575 of 2013 and 1297 of 2011 involve identical parties. In CRR 1575 of 2013 the petitioner is the accused and the de facto complainant is the opposite party No.2. In CRR 1297 of 2011 the de facto complainant is the petitioner and the petitioner in CRR 1575 of 2013 is the opposite party no.2. The State is the opposite party in both the CRRs.
(2.) Therefore, on the prayer of the parties the two applications have been taken up for analogous hearing. In CRR 1575 of 2013 the petitioner, Aditya Lal Mukerjee has challenged the judgement and order dated 26th March, 2013 passed by the Learned Chief Judge, City Sessions Court, Calcutta in Criminal Revision no.28 of 2013 thereby dismissing the same and affirming the orders dated 16th January 2013 and 26th February 2013 passed by the Ld. 6th Metropolitan Magistrate, Calcutta in GR Case No.1217 of 1999 and GR 1457 of 1999.
(3.) By the impugned Order No.4 dated 26th March, 2013 the learned Chief Judge was pleased to record as follows :- i) That GR Case No.1457 of 1999 was instituted in the court of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sealdah at the behest of present opposite party no.3 in CRR 1575 of 2013. GR case No.1217 of 1999 was instituted before the Ld. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Calcutta at the behest of the complainant who is the present opposite party No.2 in CRR 1575 of 2013. ii) By order of an Hon'ble Single Bench this Court in CRR 5161 of 2007 the said GR Case No.1457 of 1999 then pending before the learned Third Judicial Magistrate, Sealdah was transferred to the Ld. 6th Metropolitan Magistrate, Calcutta who was then hearing GR case No.1217 of 1999. iii)That the OP2 in CRR 1575 of 2013 filed a revisional application before the Hon'ble High Court being CRR 1297 of 2011 along with a connected application challenging the order of the learned 1st Fast Track Court, Calcutta dated 21st March, 2011 in Criminal Revision No.197 of 2010. By its said order dated 21st March, 2011 the learned 1st Fast Track Court was pleased to direct transfer of both the GR Case Nos.1457 of 1999 and 1217 of 1999 pending before the learned 6th Metropolitan Magistrate, Calcutta to any other court of competent jurisdiction situated on the ground floor of the CMM court building iv) Such order being contrary to the direction of this Hon'ble Court in CRR 5161 of 2007, the OP2 in CRR 1575 of 2013 was compelled to file the application being CRR 1297 of 2011 challenging the decision to transfer the cases out of the court of the learned 6th MM, Calcutta. It was, inter alia, recorded by this Hon'ble Court in CRAN 257 of 2011 filed in connection with CRR 1297 of 2011 that "There will be a fresh interim order of stay of operation of the impugned order till disposal of the revisional application". Thus the order dated 21st March 2011 as passed by the learned 1st Fast Track Court, Calcutta, was stayed by the Hon'ble High Court in CRR 1297 of 2011 and its connected CRAN no.257 of 2011. v) However, in spite of the petitioner's plea that he was not in a position to climb the staircase to reach the court of the learned 6th MM located on the first floor in view of the multiple injuries suffered by him in a serious accident, the learned Chief Judge was pleased not to allow the application for stay of proceeding till disposal of CRR 1297 of 2011 by the Hon'ble Court. The learned Chief Judge was of the view that as per the order of the Hon'ble Court in CRAN 257 of 2011 in connection with CRR 1297 of 2011 the entire proceedings in GR Case no.1457 of 1999 and GR Case no.1217 of 1999 had not been stayed and CRR 1297 of 2011 has been preferred only against the order of the learned 1st Fast Track Court passed in Criminal Revision no.197 of 2010 thereby directing transfer of the cases out of the court of learned 6th MM, Calcutta to a court on the ground floor. vi) The revisional application filed by the present petitioner was dismissed at a cost of Rs.1000 (one thousand) each in favour of the present opposite party nos.2 and 3 and the learned Chief Judge was further pleased to confirm the orders dated 16th January 2013 and 26th January 2013 passed by the learned Trial Court. The learned Chief Judge was also pleased to observe that if there is any difficulty with regard to the personal appearance of the present petitioner-accused, the same may be met by an application filed under Section 317 CrPC.;