Swapan Sinha And Another vs State Of Tripura

Akil Kureshi, CJ

The petitioners herein are the original accused No.2 and 3 in criminal case arising out of FIR dated 04.09.2012 filed before Kadamtala Police Station alleging offence punishable under Section 468 read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code. The petitioners and co-accused Binoy Krishna Paul had filed a discharge application before the Magistrate which came to be dismissed by an order dated 10.03.2017. The accused without challenging the said order before the higher Court filed a fresh discharge application on same set of facts and circumstances which was dismissed by the Magistrate by an order dated 29.07.2017 on this ground. Thereupon all the three accused approached the Sessions Court. Sessions Court allowed the revision petition qua Binoy Krishna Paul but rejected the revision petition of the other two accused i.e. the present petitioners by order dated 16.09.2017. These petitioners thereupon approached the High Court by filing Criminal Petition No.61 of 2017 in which it was noticed that the revisional order of the Sessions Judge did not contain reasons for rejection of the discharge application of the two accused. The proceedings were remanded for fresh consideration of the revision petition. This time around the learned Judge passed an order on 05.03.2021 dismissing the revision petition of both the accused upon which the present criminal petition has been filed by them.

I have perused the documents and record with the assistance of learned advocates for the parties. It is unfortunate that in the fresh order that the Sessions Court has passed which is challenged in this petition also, the learned judge has not given any worthwhile reasons for rejection of the revision petition of the accused. I had, therefore, decided to examine the case on merits. While doing so, it emerged that these petitioners had once filed discharge petition before the Magistrate which, as noted above, was dismissed on 10.03.2017. Without there being any further change in circumstances or additional material coming on record, they applied for discharge again before the Magistrate which was rightly rejected by the Magistrate by the order dated 29.07.2017. Since all subsequent proceedings arise out of this order of the Magistrate dated 29.07.2017 and call in question this order of the Magistrate, the same should have been summarily dismissed.

In the result, the criminal petition is dismissed.

Pending application(s), if any, also stands disposed of.