JUDGMENT :

Tirthankar Ghosh, J.

1. Two revisional applications being CRR 305 of 2023 and CRR 307 of 2023 have been preferred at the instance of the same petitioner.

2. In CRR 305 of 2023 the order dated 3.1.2023 passed by the learned Chief Judge, City Sessions Court, Calcutta in connection with Sessions Case No.02 of 2023 has been challenged, wherein the learned Judge was pleased to take cognizance of the offence under Sections 498A/336 and 307 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. The said case arose out of Ballygunge Police Station Case No.86 dated 25.07.2014 pursuant to the case being committed by the learned CMM, Calcutta by its order dated 12.12.2022.

3. The second revisional application being CRR 307 of 2023 has been preferred challenging the order dated 12.12.2022 by which the learned CMM, Calcutta was pleased to allow an application under Section 323 of the Code of Criminal Procedure filed at the instance of the de facto complainant/opposite party no.2 through the leaned public prosecutor wherein the learned CMM, Calcutta was pleased to hold that prima facie evidence which has surfaced makes out an offence under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code which is a sessions triable offence and committed the case arising out of Ballygunge Police Station Case No.86 dated 25.07.2014 to the court of sessions, being the learned Chief Judge, City Sessions, Calcutta.

4. Taking into account the subject matter involved, the two revisional applications are taken up together and disposed of by a single order.

5. Mr. Pratik Bhattacharyya, learned advocate appearing for the petitioner submits that the learned CMM, Calcutta has misread the order dated April 1, 2022 passed in CRR 960 of 2020 and proceeded to hold that prima facie evidence has surfaced for alleged offence under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code. Learned advocate has submitted written notes of arguments which mainly dealt with the rebuttal of the contentions advanced by the defacto complainant/opposite party no.2 and background of the family of the de facto complainant with the history of her service as a bureaucrat. Petitioner by his submission has tried to impress on factual circumstances which are beyond the scope of consideration in the two revisional applications. It has also been emphasised that ex parte evidence was recorded on 14.12.2021 which was brought to the notice of this Court in the earlier revisional application being CRR 960 of 2020 and learned CMM, Calcutta failed to take into account that the COVID regulations continued during the period when the said ex-parte evidence was recorded. Emphasis was laid down on the fact that under the given set of circumstances, learned CMM, Calcutta did not adhere to the order dated April 1, 2022 in CRR 960 of 2020 and relied upon the evidence adduced in examination-in-chief for holding the offence under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code being made out and thereafter allowed the application under Section 323 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, committing the case to the learned Chief Judge, City Sessions Court, Calcutta. To substantiate his arguments, learned advocate relied upon the following judgments:

6. State of Uttar Pradesh –Vs. – Rajnarain reported in AIR 1975 SC 865; L.D. Healy –Vs. – State of Uttar Pradesh reported in reported in (1969) 1 SCC 149; State –Vs. – Divakar reported in AIR 2002 SC 2148; Lakmirattan Cotton Mills –Vs. – Workmen reported in AIR 1975 SC 1692; Ganesh K. Gulve etc. – Vs. – State of Maharashtra un-reported judgment decided on 21.08.2002 in Appeal (Cri) 501 of 1999 by Division Bench; State of U.P. –Vs. – Ramvir Singh and Anr. reported in (2007) 6 SCC 164; CBI –Vs. – Karimullah Osan Khan reported in (2014) 11 SCC 538; Hasanbhai Valibhai Qureshi –Vs. – State of Gujarat & Ors. reported in (2004) 5 SCC 347; Jasvinder Saini & Ors. –Vs. – State ( Govt. Of NCT of Delhi) reported in (2013) 7 SCC 256; Harihar Chakravarti –Vs. – State of West Bengal reported in AIR 1954 SC 26