✦ Calcutta High Court · 07 Jun 2014

Ramesh Ray & Anr. v. State of West Bengal & Anr.

BIVAS PATTANAYAK

Case at a glance

Decided
07 Jun 2014
Bench
BIVAS PATTANAYAK

Provisions considered

Judgment

Mr. Arijit Ganguly Mr. Sanjib Kr. Dan ….for the State None appears on behalf of the petitioners. The present revisional application has been filed by the petitioner under Section 482 read with Section 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure praying for quashing of the proceeding being G.R. Case No. 1114 of 2014 pending in the Court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Purba Medinipur. The brief fact of the case is that the victim complainant filed an application under Section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure and the said petition was sent for investigation. It was alleged that on 03.04.2014 while she was returning from Dakhineswar Kali Mandir with petitioner No. 2 she was kept confined in his house and was repeatedly raped. There are also allegations of threatening and taking away of golden ornaments. On such basis Panskura Police Station Case No. 261 2014

07.06.2014 Sections 376(2)(n)/344/346/384/379/506 of the Indian Penal Code was registered. Upon completion of investigation charge-sheet was submitted against the petitioners and one other. Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the aforesaid proceedings the petitioner has preferred the present revisional 2 application. Mr. Arijit Ganguly, along with Mr. Snajib Kr. Da learned Advocates, appearing on behalf of the State submits status report. Let it be kept with the record. It appears that on completion of investigation the police authority submitted charge-sheet against the petitioners and one other under Section 376(2)(n)/344/347/379/506 of the Indian Penal Code on the basis of prima-facie materials collected during the course of investigation. In the aforesaid backdrop the proceeding before the trial Court does not call for interference. Accordingly, the present revisional application dismissed. It is however made clear the observation hereinabove shall not have bearing on the rights and contentions of the parties before the trial court. All connected applications also stand disposed of. Interim order, if any, stands vacated. Urgent photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for, be supplied expeditiously after complying with all necessary legal formalities. Let a copy of this order be sent to learned trial court for information. (Bivas Pattanayak, J.)

Questions this judgment answers

Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — ss. 156(3), 401, 482; Indian Penal Code, 1860 — ss. 344, 346, 347, 376(2)(n), 379, 384, 506.

Which court decided this case, and when?

Calcutta High Court, on 07 Jun 2014. The bench was BIVAS PATTANAYAK.

Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case

No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.

This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.

Why is this linked?

This is the original judgment text, reproduced from the public court record. Always verify it against the official record before relying on it in a filing — check it on Calcutta High Court or eCourts case status. ← Search more judgments