- (1.) In this writ application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner who is an Assistant Commissioner of Police has challenged the continuance of the proceeding in Criminal Case No. C/3285 of 1977 pending before the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, 7th Court, Calcutta in respect of alleged offences under ss 166, 330/34, 34B and 509 of the Indian Penal Code in respect of an occurrence alleged to have taken place. In July, 1974. When this application was moved by Mr. Sen, no interim order was asked for and only Rule 'Nisi' was issued.
(2.) Thereafter, an application was made for interim order for stay of the proceedings before the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, 7th Court, Calcutta. Mr. Chatterjee, appearing for Sm. Archana Guha, the complainant, did out ask for any direction for filing affidavit cither in the main Rule or in the interim application. But elaborate arguments were made by the learned Counsel appearing for the parties. I directed repeatedly to file affidavits in view of the elaborate arguments being made on the merits of the case so that She entire matter could be disposed of without any delay. It was only before the judgment was delivered, the affidavit-in-opposition was filed in the main writ application on behalf of Sm. Archana Guha. Since copy of the affidavit was not given to the petitioner, no reply could be filed and accordingly the allegations made in the affidavit in opposition have not been admitted by the petitioner.
(3.) It may be mentioned that at the initial stage, stand of Mr. Sen appearing for the writ petitioner was that the learned Metropolitan Magistral, 7th Court has virtually made up his mind and accordingly he should not hear the complaint filed by Sm. Archana Guha. However, with the change of the counsel, this stand was also changed and the continuation of the said proceedings has beau assailed in this writ application .;