IMPORTANT POINT
Application which contain some assertion should be verified by person making statements for holding such person responsible regarding its genuineness – However, there is no provision which makes such verification essential.

JUDGMENT

Ananda Kumar Mukherjee, J.—Petitioner preferred this revisional application under section 482 of the code of Criminal Procedure being aggrieved and dissatisfied with order dated 16.11.2019 passed by the Learned Judicial Magistrate 2nd Court at Alipore in Case No. C/ 4108 of 2011 under section 420/ 120 B of the Indian Penal Code, filed against Opposite Party no. 2 and others, whereby Learned Magistrate has discharged the accused persons under section 245 (2) of Cr. P.C. due to absence of the complainant on the date fixed for evidence.

2. Learned Advocate for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner filed a complaint case before the Learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Alipore which was registered as Case No. C/ 4108 of 2011 and transferred to the 2nd Court of Learned Judicial Magistrate at Alipore for disposal. The petitioner wanted to produce some documents as evidence which were seized from him by police in connection with Tollygunge P.S Case No. 52 of 2011 but were not returned. In this connection Writ petition no. 31667 (w) of 2013 was filed by the petitioner and by order dated 26.06.2018 this court permitted the petitioner to produce certified copies of those documents in the evidence. Subsequently, the petitioner filed a Criminal Revision No. 3 of 2019 before this Court for quick disposal of the complaint case. By order dated 05.03.2019 this court directed Learned Magistrate to dispose of the pending case as early as possible.

3. Further case of the petitioner/complainant is that the complaint case was fixed on 15.06.2019 for evidence, which was three months after the early date. Learned Advocate for the petitioner filed an application before the Learned Magistrate for preponing the date for hearing but the application was rejected.

4. According to the petitioner after examining the complainant as PW-1, Mr. Saroj Praharaj S.I. of police was examined as PW-2 in the case and he produced some documents including 21 bills, 18 challans, 4 cheques and 4 cheque return memos along with letter dated 21.08.2000 and 06.09.2000. Learned Magistrate collectively marked those documents as “P/4” but did not admit them in evidence by putting exhibit marks. Since PW-2 did not produce some documents on that date, he sought for time as a result the case was adjourn to 20.07.2019.

5. According to the petitioner on 20.07.2019 the case could not be taken up for hearing as learned Magistrate was on leave and the Magistrate-in-Charge refused to take evidence. It is alleged that as the petitioner/ complainant thereafter filed writ petition no. 15422 (w) of 2019. On 25.09.2019 though the Advocate for the complainant and the witness, PW-2 were present in court, learned Magistrate refused to take evidence in the absence of the accused person. Learned Advocate for the petitioner submitted that on 15.06.2019 learned Magistrate in absence of the accused persons had recorded evidence but on 25.09.2019 he refused to take evidence despite the presence of the witness in court.

6. It is further contended that on 15.10.2019 the complainant’s advocate was present in court but due to the absence of the complainant learned Magistrate issued an order directing the complainant to show-cause and recorded that no step was taken by the complainant till 12:25 p.m. The main contention of the petitioner/complainant is that on 16.11.2019, PW-2, Saroj Praharaj S.I. of Police Tollygunge P.S. who was examine in part could not appear in court due to his illness and step was taken for fixing another date for his evidence but learned Magistrate rejected the cause shown by the complainant for his absence, on the ground that it was without any verification or signature of the litigant and in the same order discharged the accused under section 245(2) of the Cr. P.C.

7. Learned Advocate for the petitioner argued that the complainant was already examined in full and his attendance was not necessary on the date of examination of PW-2 who was also partly examined.