Ra(sic)qual Islam Talukdar vs Abdul Manaf and Another

Amitava Roy, J.—Heard Mr. Sarkar, learned counsel for the petitioner. None appears for the State. The revision petition is of the year 1995 and I am therefore not inclined to further adjourn the hearing of the matter. The petitioner before this court prays for quashing of the Crl. proceeding, being C.R. Case No. 169/93, pending in the court of Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Karimganj under sections 406/420 IPC.

I have perused the complaint petition and also the statement of the complainant and that of the other witnesses in support of the complaint. The process had already been issued and the accused persons had already entered appearance in the proceeding before the court below. The complainant and the witnesses have also been cross examined on behalf of the defence. In my view, to entertain the prayer for quashing of the proceeding, at a stage when a substantial progress has been made therein would not be in the fitness of things. In that view of the matter, without entering into the merit of the contentions raised in the petition in support of the prayer for quashing of the proceedings. I consider it fit and proper, to dispose of this petition with a direction to the learned trial court to take up the proceeding and to dispose of the same at the earliest.

With the above observation and direction the petition is closed. Needless to say, an endeavour will be made by the learned trial court to dispose of the proceeding as early as possible.