Full Judgment
1. This revisional application has been filed by the defacto complainant in complaint Case No.414C of 2004 under Section 379 of the Indian Penal Code pending in the Court of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate at Purba Midnapore challenging the legality, validity and propriety of the order dated 15.11.2008 passed by the learned Magistrate whereby the learned Magistrate fixed 17.12.2008 for hearing argument of the parties in stead of further examining the accused persons under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
2. Mr. Himangshu Dey, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner contends that the defacto complainant had taken out an application drawing the attention of the learned Trial Court that proper question was not put to the accused persons in course of their examination under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and that is why he was prejudiced. That prayer was rejected by the learned Trial Court. However, on 15.11.2008 was fixed for further examination of the accused persons under Section 313 of the Cr. P. C. because on the previous date, it was done in part. Upon consideration of the evidence on record, the learned Court did not find any incriminating evidence against the accused persons for which their explanation was required by way of examination under Section 313 of the Cr. P. C. The learned Magistrate, therefore, closed the chapter and fixed date for hearing argument. The petitioner has come up with this application challenging the legality, validity and propriety of the order dated 15.11.2008.
3. Mr. Amitava Karmakar, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the opposite parties/accused contends that the entire proceeding under Section 313 of the Cr. P. C. is between the Court and the accused. The defacto complainant has nothing to say in this matter. If in course of examination under Section 313 of the Cr. P. C., an accused feels aggrieved for the manner he has been examined, he can make out his case at the time of giving explanation to the Court.
4. Even in that case also, accused has nothing to say but to make out his case by making a prayer to the Court that he has something to say which the Court supposed to take note.
5. On careful perusal of the order impugned dated 15.11.2008, I find that the learned Trial Court did not find any incriminating material requiring any examination of the accused under Section 313 of the Cr. P. C. It, however, was not oblivious of the fact that the accused persons were examined in part earlier. Since no new evidence or material could be found against the accused persons, the learned Trial Court felt it unnecessary to continue examination under Section 313 of the Cr. P. C. When no fresh circumstances were brought in evidence and where there was no incriminating evidence at all, the Court is not required to examine the accused under Section 313 of the Cr. P. C. but should give the accused an opportunity to make his case, if any.
6. The Code of Criminal Procedure does not permit a defacto complainant to direct the Trial Court to get one accused examined under Section 313 Cr. P. C. in this manner or that manner. I repeat that examination of the caused persons under Section 313 of the Cr. P. C. is entirely between the accused and the Court and in this episode, the defacto complainant has no role to play. The fate of a trial does not depend on examination under Section 313 of the Cr. P. C. but on evidence recorded by the Court. Therefore, the defacto complainant has no locus standi to raise his finger as to the manner in which the Court has examined an accused under Section 313 of the Cr. P. C. The order impugned is not suffering from any illegality, incorrectness and impropriety necessitating any interference of this revisional application.
7. The revisional application is, thus, disposed of.
8. The learned Magistrate is directed to expedite the trial.
9. Urgent photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for, be given to the learned Advocates of the parties upon compliance of necessary formalities.