DISTRICT: SOUTH 24-PARGANAS
IN THE
HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
CRIMINAL
REVISIONAL JURISDICTION
C. R. R. No. of
2014
In the Matter of
An application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India
And
In the Matter of
Order dated 22nd
day of May’ 2014, passed by Smt. Sudeshna De ( Chatterjee ), The Learned
Additional District and Sessions Judge, Baruipur, District South 24-Parganas in
Criminal Motion Case No. 431 of 2012, whereby the Learned Judge was pleased to
affirm The Order passed by The Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, at Baruipur,
District South 24-Parganas on 28th day of August’ 2012 in Sonarpur
Police Station Case no. 304 of 2007
And
In The Matter of
Shri Krishnapada Mondal, Son of
Late Panchanan Mondal, residing at Village – Khurigachhi, Post Office &
Police Station – Sonarpur, Pin – 700 150, District – South 24 Parganas.
______Defacto Complainant / Petitioner.
-
Versus
–
1)
Smt.
Molina Mondal, Wife of Sri Deben Chandra Mondal, residing at Village –
Khirishtalla, Post Office and Police Station – Sonarpur, Pin – 700 150, District
– South 24 Parganas.
2)
Smt.
Nalina Naskar, Wife of Sri Kishori Mohan Naskar, residing at Village – Noapara
Biplabi Sangha Club, Post Office and Police Station – Sonarpur, Pin – 700 150, District
– South 24 Parganas.
3)
Sri
Rathikanta Mondal, Son of Late Ramanath Mondal, residing at Village –
Khurigachhi, Post Office and Police Station – Sonarpur, Pin – 700 150, District
– South 24 Parganas.
4)
Sri
Nilkanta Mondal, Son of Late Ramanath Mondal, residing at Village –
Khurigachhi, Post Office and Police Station – Sonarpur, Pin – 700 150, District
– South 24 Parganas.
5)
Sri
Ramkanta Mondal, Son of Late Ramanath Mondal, residing at Village –
Khurigachhi, Post Office and Police Station – Sonarpur, Pin – 700 150, District
– South 24 Parganas.
6)
Sri
Khokan Mondal, Son of Late Ramanath Mondal, residing at Village – Khurigachhi,
Post Office and Police Station – Sonarpur, Pin – 700 150, District – South 24
Parganas.
7)
Smt.
Angurbala Mondal, Wife of Sri Deben Mondal, residing at Village – Sonarpur
Khirishtalla, Post Office and Police Station – Sonarpur, Pin – 700 150, District
– South 24 Parganas.
8)
Smt.
Jyotshna Mondal, Wife of Sri Bipad Chandra Mondal, residing at Village –
Radhanagar, Post Office and Police
Station – Sonarpur, Pin – 700 150, District – South 24 Parganas.
9)
Smt.
Rekha Mondal, Wife of Sri Ajit Kumar Mondal, residing at Village – Khurigachhi,
Post Office and Police Station – Sonarpur, Pin – 700 150, District – South 24
Parganas.
10)
Smt.
Debala Mondal, Wife of Late Ramnath Mondal, residing at Village – Khurigachhi,
Post Office and Police Station – Sonarpur, Pin – 700 150, District – South 24
Parganas.
11)
Sri
Haran Chandra Mondal, Son of Late Bholanath Mondal, residing at Village -
Khurigachhi, Post Office and Police Station – Sonarpur, Pin – 700 150, District
– South 24 Parganas.
12)
Sri
Dilip Chandra Mondal, Son of Late Bholanath Mondal, residing at Village -
Khurigachhi, Post Office and Police Station – Sonarpur, Pin – 700 150, District
– South 24 Parganas.
13)
Sri
Pradip Mondal, Son of Late Bholanath Mondal, residing at Village - Khurigachhi,
Post Office and Police Station – Sonarpur, Pin – 700 150, District – South 24
Parganas.
14)
Smt.
Shephali Dhali, Wife of Sri Rabin Dhali, residing at Village – Mahamayatalla,
Post Office and Police Station – Sonarpur, Pin – 700 150, District – South 24
Parganas.
15)
Smt.
Sumitra Mondal, Wife of Sri Satyen Mondal, residing at Village – Phuladhar,
Post Office and Police Station – Sonarpur, Pin – 700 150, District – South 24
Parganas.
16)
Smt.
Narendra Dhali, Wife of Sri Gobinda Dhali, residing at Village – Mahamayatalla,
Post Office and Police Station – Sonarpur, Pin – 700 150, District – South 24
Parganas.
17)
Smt.
Sandhya Naskar, wife of Sri Sudershan Naskar, residing at Village – Kalayanpur,
Post Office and Police Station – Baruipur, Pin – 700 150, District – South 24
Parganas.
18)
Smt.
Swapna Naskar, Wife of Sri Khokan Naskar, residing at Village – Ghasiara, Post
Office and Police Station – Sonarpur, Pin – 700 150, District – South 24
Parganas.
19)
Smt.
Shanti Mondal, Wife of Late Bholanath Mondal, residing at Village –
Khurigachhi, Post Office and Police Stsation – Sonarpur, Pin – 700 150, District
– South 24 Parganas.
20)
Shri
Nirad Baran Ghosh, Son of Late Gopal Chandra Ghosh, residing at Village – Sahebpara,
premises no. 4, at Sonarpur Station Road, Post Office and Police Station –
Sonarpur, Pin – 700 150, District – South 24 Parganas.
21)
Shri
Johar Mondal, Son of Late Sarat Chandra Mondal, residing at Village –
Khurigachhi, Post Office and Police Station – Sonarpur, Pin – 700 150, District
– South 24 Parganas.
22)
Sri
Birendranath Sardar, Son of Late Santosh Sardar, residing at Village –
Darijangal, Police Station – Sandeshkhali, Pin – 700 150, District – North 24
Parganas.
23)
Sri
Ganesh Naskar, of Village – Khurigachhi, Post Office and Police Station –
Sonarpur, Pin – 700 150, District – South 24 Parganas.
24)
Shri
Satyen Mondal, Son of Shri Nemai Mondal, residing at Village – Phulerhat, Post
Office and Police Station – Sonarpur, Pin – 700 150, District – South 24
Parganas.
________Accused /
Opposite Parties.
25)
State
of West Bengal.
_________Complainant / Opposite Party.
To
The Hon’ble Mrs. Manjula
Chellur, The Chief Justice and Her Companion Justices of the said Hon’ble Court
The humble
petition of the petitioner above-named
Most Respectfully Sheweth: -
1.
That the petitioner states that Your petitioner is a
peace loving citizen and is permanently residing at the address mentioned in
the Cause Title.
2.
That the Defacto Complainant /
Petitioner preferred one Complaint against the accused persons on 11-06-2007,
before the Learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, at Alipore, South 24 Parganas,
under Section 156 (3) of Cr.P.C. for the Offences Committed to be punishable
under Section 120B, 406, 467, 468, 469,
471, 474, and 423 of the Indian Penal Code’ 1860, which has been allowed
and subsequently an F.I.R. being no. 304, dated 20-06-2007, has been drawn up by the Sonarpur Police
Station.
3.
That on 14-09-2010, Charge
Sheet being no. 584 / 09 dated 31-08-2009, has been submitted by the
Investigating Officer of the case matter. The said charge sheet has been
submitted under Section 467, 468, 469, 471, 474, 423, 120B, and 406 of Indian
Penal Code’ 1860, against all the accused persons, FIR named. The said Charge
Sheet has been submitted by the Investigating Officer, after the expiry of more
than one year from the date of it’s preparation and forwarded by the Inspector
– in – charge of Police of the Sonarpur Police Station.
4.
That the said Charge Sheet
being no. 584 / 09 dated 31-08-2009, has been filed by the Investigation
Officer Sri Nikhil Kumar Mondal, S.I. of Sonarpur P.S. who did not cause any
proper investigation in other words he did not carry out any investigation in
the case matter, rather he submitted charge sheet in the case matter against
the dead accused person namely Radha Rani Kayal, ( accused no.1 ), and others,
which has been reported before the Learned Court. The said Investigating
Officer has done only desk work and submitted Charge Sheet.
5.
That regarding the delay in
submission of the said Charge Sheet, the Investigating Officer, stated that he
did misplace the charge sheet and thereafter he trace out and submitted before
the Learned Court, though not on any prior occasions it has been reported by
him to the Learned Court, that the said Charge Sheet has been prepared and
misplaced. The said delayed charge sheet submitted only when the Learned Court
on 05-06-2011, directed to comply with the Order of the Hon’ble High Court,
Calcutta and to submit report, under the observation and direction of the
Learned Court that the Investigating Officer has neither submit the report nor
any intimation is received from the I.O. regarding the stage of investigation
of the case such conduct of the I.O. be brought to the notice of S.D.P.O.
Baruipur, vide order dated 05-06-2010.
6.
That it is crystal clear that
the present Investigating Officer Sri Nikhil Kumar Mondal, S.I. of Sonarpur
Police, did not cause any investigation, after taking responsibility handed
over by the Inspector-in-Charge of Sonarpur Police Station, in a circumstances
of transfer occurred to the previous and original Investigating Officer Shri
Shambhu Nath Nath, S.I. of Police, in the case matter.
7. That it is pertain to mention that it has been seen from the following order of the Learned Court below, which is pending till date.
a)
Order
dated 25.07.2007 - I / O, submitted prayer for recording statement u/s 164 cr.
P. c. of witness Krishna Pada Mondal, which was allowed but pending till today,
without any furtherance.
b)
Order
dated 30.08.2007 - I.O. submitted a prayer for cancellation of bail against the
accused (1) Birendra Sardar, and (2) Jahar Mondal, who did not co-operate with
I.O., which was not considered by this Learned Court due to an interim order of
stay of the Hon’ble High Court at Calcutta and still awaiting for the
consideration of such prayer, till date.
c)
Order
dated 31.07.2007- I.O. submitted prayer for deeds for expert examination,
produced under the seizure list, which was not considered due to the hearing of
Bail Petition of the accused and still awaiting for the Learned Court’s
consideration.
8.
That
in such a circumstances, it has been observed that the Officer in Charge of The
Sonarpur Police Station has not take any initiative on and after the transfer
of the concern Investigating Officer of the case matter and also did not
take any initiative to cause necessary
investigation in the case matter, and did not remind to the Learned Court below
about the awaiting consideration on being knowledge about the Hon’ble High
Court’s Order dated 30th day of July’ 2009, in C.R.R. no. 3068 of
2007.
9.
That
the Petitioner state and submits that the Hon’ble High Court at Calcutta,
observed the following, while disposed of the case matter being no. C.R.R. no.
3068 of 2007, on 30th day of July’ 2009, “ Mr. Ghosal submits with reference to the C.D. that steps have
been taken for opinion of the handwriting expert and notice has been issued
upon the accused persons for the specimen signature and after the report will
be available, the report in final form shall be submitted. From the C.D., it
appears that some investigation have been carried out by the police pursuant to
the registration of the case. The whole question is whether the deed in
question is the outcome of forgery or not, when this is the position,
howsoever, the defence has a case, proceeding can not quashed, more
particularly, when investigation has progressed to a certain extent. Having
regard to the principles in State of Haryana – Vs – Bhajanlal and R.B. Kapoor –
Vs – State of Punjab, it is not a fit case where proceeding should be quashed.”
Xerox copy of the Certified copy of the Order
dated 30th day of July’ 2009, in C.R.R. no.
3068 of 2007, passed by the Hon’ble High Court, Calcutta, is annexed herewith and marked as Annexure
P1 to the instant Criminal Revisional application.
10.
That
the Petitioner state and submits that under the said Charge Sheet the present
I.O. showing the accused Sl. No. 1,3,19, and 21 as absconder, and praying for
W/A. against them, before the Learned Court, and also state that rest accused
persons surrendered before the Ld. Court on 31.07.2007, which is also not
correct.
11.
That
the Petitioner state and submits that while the accused persons gave threat to
the petitioner for withdrawal of the case and subsequently assaulted, he
informed and communicated his grievances to the Officer-in-Charge of the
Sonarpur Police Station on several occasions, though the present I.O. or the
Officer-in-Charge did not cause any enquiry or investigation into the said
matter of complaint by the Petitioner herein.
12.
That
the Petitioner state and submits that the present I.O. in the case matter, did
not cause the following investigation :
a)
Examination
of Defacto-Complainant and other witnesses has not been done before the Learned
Judicial Magistrate, even after prayer for the purposes has been made to the
Learned Court.
b)
The
specimen signature of the accused persons has not been taken even after steps
have been taken for opinion of the handwriting expert and notice has been
issued upon the accused persons for the specimen signature.
c)
No
Seizure of the Question Deed has ever been made before the Sub-Registrar of the
Sonarpur Sub-Registry Office.
d)
No
Specimen signature of the Petitioner and his brother, has ever been taken for
handwriting expert opinion, and no steps in this regard has ever been taken by
the present I.O.
e)
No
deeds has ever been placed for expert Examination.
f)
No
expert opinion has ever been taken in any aspects by the present I.O.
g)
No
arrest of the accused persons ever been made, by the present I.O.
13.
That
the Petitioner state and submits that unless the following necessary acts could
be done, in the case matter, it is not possible to prove the case against the
accused persons.
h)
Examination
of Defacto-Complainant and other witnesses before the Learned Judicial
Magistrate.
i)
The
specimen signature of the accused persons for opinion of the handwriting
expert.
j)
Seizure
of the Question Deed from the Sub-Registrar of the Sonarpur Sub-Registry
Office.
k)
Specimen
signature of the Petitioner and his brother, for handwriting expert opinion.
l)
Deeds
place for expert Examination.
m) Expert opinion, in
respect of handwriting and on other necessary aspects.
14.
That
the Petitioner state and submits that the present I.O. have no knowledge about
the case and he did not cause any investigation and finally submitted Charge
Sheet in such a circumstances, which breed strong suspicion and apprehension
about the present I.O.’s investigation, moreover in the present Charge Sheet,
the manner and statements of the I.O. clearly shows that it is very difficult
to establish and prove the case against the accused persons, since the
necessary materials and opinions has not ever been made or taken, and whereas
this non-action, also raise strong apprehension, against the present I.O.’s
Investigation. Altogether the present Charge Sheet do not suffice the interest
of administration of justice, breed the requirement of re-investigation in the
case matter, by the another Police Officer of higher Rank, other than the
present I.O. Sri Nikhil Kumar Mondal, S.I. of Sonarpur Police.
Xerox copy of the Certified copy of the
Orders, F.I.R. and Charge Sheet are collectively annexed herewith and marked as
Annexure P2 to the instant Criminal Revisional application.
15.
That
the Petitioner state and submits that the present I.O. submitted the Charge
Sheet in such a manner, so that he can save the accused persons from the
punishment for the offences committed to be punishable under Section 467, 468,
469, 471, 474, 423, 120B, and 406 of Indian Penal Code’ 1860.
16.
That
the Petitioner state and submits that in the facts and circumstances,
petitioner’s seeking re-investigation of the case matter, in the interest of
administration of fair justice.
17.
That
the Petitioner state and submits that unless the re-investigation directed by
the Learned Court in the case matter, the Petitioner will be highly prejudice
to get faire justice and suffer with highly irreparable loss and injury.
18.
That
in view of such facts your petitioner presented his NARAZI petition before the
Ld. Court below, on 21st day of June’ 2011, copy of which duly
served upon the Ld. Public Prosecutor and the Ld. Advocate for the accused
persons, and whereas the said NARAZI
Petition was finally heard on 08-08-2012, by the Learned Additional Chief
Judicial Magistrate, at Baruipur, South 24 Parganas, and the order on the said
application was passed on 28-08-2012.
Xerox copy of the Certified copy of the Order
dated 28-08-2012, passed by the Learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate,
at Baruipur, South 24 Parganas, in Sonarpur Police Station Case no. 304 of
2007, is annexed herewith and marked as Annexure P3 to the
instant Criminal Revisional application.
19.
That
the Petitioner states and submits that the Learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate,
at Baruipur, South 24 Parganas, passed the necessary order as on 28-08-2012, in
Sonarpur Police Station Case no. 304 of 2007, as rejected the prayer of the
petitioner for re-investigation or fresh investigation under Section 173 (8)
Cr. P. C. In considerable views taken from Reeta Nag cases of Hon’ble Apex
Court.
20.
That being aggrieved
by and dissatisfied with the Said Order passed by The Learned Trial Court, Your
petitioner preferred Criminal Revisional Application under Section 397 read
with Section 399 of the Code of Criminal Procedure before The Learned District
Judge at Alipore, District South 24-Parganas, the number being Criminal Motion
No. 431 of 2012, which was subsequently transferred to The Learned Court of The Additional District
and Sessions Judge, at Baruipur, District South 24-Parganas.
21.
That on contested
hearing, The Learned
Additional District and Sessions Judge, at Baruipur, District South 24-Parganas was pleased to dismissed the revisional application
filed by the petitioner without assigning any reason thereof and was pleased to
affirm The Order passed by The Learned Magistrate in Sonarpur Police Station
Case no. 304 of 2007. Vide Order dated 22nd day of May’ 2014, in
Criminal Motion Case no. 431 of 2012.
22.
That the Petitioner states and submits that the
Narazi Petition was made with the facts of gross act and omission, which
directly shows and established that the investigation was concluded by the
Investigating Officer with mala fide intention and purported action as to
provide safeguard to the accused persons, and without notice and or opportunity
given or provided by the Learned Magistrate, in the said case matter of the
Sonarpur Police Station case no. 304 of 2007, to the defacto Complainant/
Petitioner. The Learned Magistrate, was pleased to take cognizance on the said
purported Charge Sheet, which is not in accordance with the Law.
23.
That the Petitioner states and submits that the said
Narazi application of the petitioner established the truth that the
Investigation was mala fide, not proper, and conduced in a very purposive and
illegal manner.
24.
That the Petitioner states and submits that the defacto-complainant
did not provide with any opportunity to hear at pre-cognizance stage of charge
sheet before the Learned Magistrate.
25. That the relevant portion of the Order dated 28-08-2012, passed by the Learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, at Baruipur, South 24 Parganas, in Sonarpur Police Station Case no. 304 of 2007, which is also the subject of this revisional application, reproduce below :
“ It appears that in this case Charge Sheet has been submitted under Section 467, 468, 469, 471, 474, 420, 120B, and 34 of I.P.C. against 25 accused persons and thereafter it was found that the accused Radharani Kayal, has already been expired against whom the case has been filed for ever. From the materials on record and C.D. it appears that initially although I.O. prayed for recording statement of the defacto complainant Krishnapada Mondal, under Section 161 of Cr.p.C. but the same was not ultimately recorded. However, on Consideration of the materials on record and C.D. and also taking into account that the I.O., after completion of Investigation, submitted Charge sheet, Cognizance has already been taken. It is the settled principle of law that no order of re-investigation can be passed on the prayer of the defacto complainant. It is also the settled principle of law that order of further investigation under section 173 (8) Cr.P.C. can be passed only on the basis of the prayer of the prosecution agency and no order of further investigation under Section 173 (8) can be passed on the basis of the prayer of the defacto complainant ( Ref: ( 2009 ) 2 C.Cr. L.R. ( SC ) 820, in the case of Reeta Nag Versus State of West Bengal and others. Considering the facts and circumstances and in view of the above mentioned decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court, prayer for re-investigation or fresh investigation under Section 173 (8) of Cr.P.C. as made by the defacto complainant, is rejected.”
26.
That the Petitioner states and submits that the
Learned Magistrate to his own understanding the views taken from the Judgment
of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India, in Reeta Nag cases ( Supra ), rejected
the prayer of the defacto complainant.
27.
That the Petitioner states and submits that the
Article 21 of the Constitution of India guarantees fair trial. A fair Trial is
immposible if there is no fair investigation. The investigation must be
conducted thoroughly, without bias or prejudice, without any ulterior motive
and every fact, surfacing during the course of investigation and eventually, on
the trial, must be recorded contemporaneously by the investigating officer at
the time of investigation.
28.
That the Petitioner states and submits that a
manipulated investigation or an investigation, which is motivated, cannot lead
to a fair trial, necessary therefore
investigation should be proper and fair conducted in accordance with the
prescribed Law.
29.
That being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the Order dated 22nd day of
May’ 2014, passed by Smt. Sudeshna De ( Chatterjee ), The Learned Additional
District and Sessions Judge, Baruipur, District South 24-Parganas in Criminal
Motion Case No. 431 of 2012, whereby the Learned Judge was pleased to affirm
The Order passed by The Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, at Baruipur,
District South 24-Parganas on 28th day of August’ 2012 in Sonarpur
Police Station Case no. 304 of 2007, Your
petitioner begs to move this Criminal Revisional Application under Article 227
of the Constitution of India before Your Lordship on the following amongst
other
G R O U N D S
I.
FOR THAT the Learned Trial Judge failed to consider
the provisions of law while passing the impugned order;
II.
FOR THAT the impugned proceeding is an abuse of the
process of The Court and as such it calls for interference;
III.
FOR THAT a Court proceeding ought not to be
permitted to degenerate into a weapon of harassment or persecution;
IV.
FOR THAT the Narazi Petition was made with the facts
of gross act and omission, which directly shows and established that the
investigation was concluded by the Investigating Officer with mala fide
intention and purported action as to provide safeguard to the accused persons,
and without notice and or opportunity given or provided by the Learned
Magistrate, in the said case matter of the Sonarpur Police Station case no. 304
of 2007, to the defacto Complainant/ Petitioner. The Learned Magistrate, was
pleased to take cognizance on the said purported Charge Sheet, which is not in
accordance with the Law;
V.
FOR THAT the said Narazi application of the
petitioner established the truth that the Investigation was malafide, not
proper, and conduced in a very purposive and illegal manner;
VI.
FOR THAT the defacto-complainant did not provide
with any opportunity to hear at pre-cognizance stage of charge sheet before the
Learned Magistrate;
VII.
FOR THAT the Learned Magistrate to his own
understanding the views taken from the Judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of
India, in Reeta Nag cases ( Supra ), rejected the prayer of the defacto
complainant;
VIII.
FOR THAT the Article 21 of the Constitution of India
guarantees fair trial. A fair Trial is impossible if there is no fair investigation.
The investigation must be conducted thoroughly, without bias or prejudice,
without any ulterior motive and every fact, surfacing during the course of
investigation and eventually, on the trial, must be recorded contemporaneously
by the investigating officer at the time of investigation;
IX.
FOR THAT a manipulated investigation or an
investigation, which is motivated, cannot lead to a fair trial, necessary
therefore investigation should be proper
and fair conducted in accordance with the prescribed Law;
X.
FOR THAT the Learned Court below did not apply any
application of judicial interpretation and therefore failed to understand the
necessity of re-investigation and or fresh investigation into the matter
concern brought up before the Learned Court, by the petitioner, in accordance
with the Law;
XI.
FOR THAT the defective and purposive investigation
only breed the defective and abusive process of Law during trial, and further
more it cannot rectified by aiding with any provisions of the Criminal
Procedure Code’ 1973;
XII.
For that the impugned order, if allowed to stand,
would result in failure of justice.
30.
That the application is made bona fide and
for the ends of justice.
Under
the aforesaid circumstances, it is most humbly prayed that Your Lordship may
graciously be pleased to issue a Rule calling upon the opposite parties to show
cause as to why the impugned Order dated 22nd day of May’ 2014, passed by Smt. Sudeshna De
( Chatterjee ), The Learned Additional District and Sessions Judge, Baruipur,
District South 24-Parganas in Criminal Motion Case No. 431 of 2012, should not be set aside and upon hearing the causes that may be shown to
make The Rule absolute
And
Pending disposal of The Rule all further proceedings of Sonarpur Police
Station Case no. 304 of 2007, pending in
The Court of The Learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, at Baruipur,
South 24 Parganas, be stayed till the
disposal of the present revisional application
And
and/or to pass such other further Order/Orders as Your Lordship may deem
fit and proper
And Your
petitioner as in duty bound shall ever pray.
A F F I D A V I T
I, Shri
Krishnapada Mondal, Son of Late Panchanan Mondal, aged about 37 years, by faith
Hindu, residing at Village – Khurigachhi, Post Office & Police Station –
Sonarpur, Pin – 700 150, District – South 24 Parganas, do hereby solemnly affirm and say as follows: -
1.
That I am the
petitioner in the instant case, I am well acquainted with the facts and
circumstances of the case and as such I am competent to affirm this affidavit.
2.
That the statements
made in Paragraph 1, 2, 11 and 24 are true to my knowledge, those made in
Paragraphs 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 12, 13, 15, 18, 19, 20, 21, 23, 25, and 26
are true on the basis of records and the rest are my humble submission before
this Hon’ble Court.
|
Prepared in my Office |
Deponent is known to me |
|
|
Clerk to |
|
Advocate |
|
|
|
Advocate |
Solemnly
affirmed before me
this day of September, 2014
C O M M I S S I O N E R
DISTRICT: SOUTH 24-PARGANAS
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
CRIMINAL
REVISIONAL JURISDICTION
C. R. R. No. of 2014
In the Matter of
Krishnapada Mondal
……..Petitioner
Versus
Smt. Molina Mondal and others
……… Opposite Parties
An application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India
Ashok Kumar Singh
Advocate,
Bar Association,
Room No. 15,
High Court, Calcutta
No comments:
Post a Comment