The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement of more than prima facie evidence to issue summons against additional accused persons and the importance of giving an opportunity of hearing to the proposed accused persons before adding them to the proceedings.

JUDGMENT :

Apurba Sinha Ray, J.

1. CRR 2751 of 2019 is taken up for hearing and disposal. This criminal revisional application is directed against an order dated September 12, 2019, passed by the learned Trial Court on an application filed by the prosecution on an application dated November 6, 2017, filed by the prosecution under Section 319 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. By the order impugned the learned Trial Court issued summons to the petitioner herein and other persons proposing to add them as accused on 12.09.2019.

2. Binapani Bairagi and Rakesh Bairagi being the grandmother and father of the murdered victim Himangshu Bairagi filed an application dated 16.09.2015 before the Court of the Learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court, Bongaon, North 24 Parganas under Section 193 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, read with Section 228 of the said Code praying for issuance of summons upon the persons named by the said Binapani Bairagi in the course of her statement made before the Learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, under Section 164 of Cr.P.C., read with Section 482 of Cr.P.C. The said application was rejected by the Court by order dated 08.10.2015. A criminal revisional application numbered as CRR No. 3901 of 2015 under Section 397/401 of the Cr.P.C. was filed read with Section 482 of Cr.P.C. challenging therein the propriety of the said order dated 08.10.2015 which is still pending for adjudication before the Court.

3. Another application numbered as CRR 3958 of 2015 was also filed by the grandmother and father of the victim praying for transferring the relevant case from the Learned Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Tract Court, Bongaon, North 24 Parganas to the Court of Learned City Sessions Court at Calcutta. It is further contended that while other writ petitions and revisional application being No. CRR 3958 of 2015 were disposed of by the Hon’ble High Court, the Writ Petition No. 7308(W) of 2015 and CRR No. 3901 of 2015 along with other matters are pending for adjudication before the High Court at Calcutta. The petitioners Sankar Addya along with four others were added as opposite parties in CRR No. 3901 of 2015 pursuant to an order passed by the High Court at Calcutta. The petitioner herein/proposed accused person Sankar Addya after having been added as an opposite party in the aforesaid criminal revisional application, has been duly represented by the learned advocates whenever the said criminal revisional application along with other connected and unconnected matters, that have been tagged to CRR No. 3901 of 2015, have been taken up for hearing by the High Court.

4. In course of hearing CRR No. 3901 of 2015 along with other connected matters thereto, the High Court at Calcutta vide its order dated 27.06.2016 transferred the relevant sessions case from the Court of the Learned Sessions Judge, Fast Court, Bongaon, North 24 Parganas to the Learned City Sessions Court Calcutta and also appointed a Learned Special Public Prosecutor to conduct the trial in connection with the said case. The High Court also observed that it was inclined to examine the prayer for summoning the proposed accused persons including the petitioner as accused person, only after recording of more cogent evidence like that of the grandmother of the deceased victim. Subsequent to the completion of the deposition of the said Binapani Bairagi, the High Court vide its order dated 12.06.2017 directed that further evidence of Rakesh Bairagi be recorded before the Learned Trial Court and a report be filed before the High Court on the next date of hearing.

5. The further case of the revisionist is that during the pendency of the CRR No. 3901 of 2015 before the High Court at Calcutta, the prosecution filed an application dated 06.11.2017 under Section 319 of the Code of Criminal procedure, 1973 before the Learned City Sessions Court wherein a prayer was made on the part of the prosecution to pass an order by issuing process against