IN THE SUPREME COURT OF BANGLADESH

HIGH COURT DIVISION

(Criminal Miscellaneous Jurisdiction)

Present

Mr. Justice Md. Salim

And

Mr. Justice Shahed Nuruddin

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS CASE NO.39229 OF 2016

Mizanur Rahman

............Accused-Petitioner.

-VERSUS-

The State

.....Opposite Party. No one appears                    ------- For both the parties. Mr. B.M. Abdur Rafell, D.A.G. with

Mr. Binoy Kumar Ghosh, AAG

Mr. A.T.M. Aminur Rahman (Milon), AAG

Ms. Lily Rani Saha, AAG            .......For the State.

Heard and Judgment on: 31.01.2024 Shahed Nuruddin,J:

By this Rule, the accused-petitioner by filing an application

under Section 561A of the Code of Criminal Procedure sought for quashing the impugned judgment and order dated 12.06.2016 passed by  the learned Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge,  5th Court, Chittagong  in  Criminal  Revision  No.  648  of  2015  arising  out  of Bakolia Police Station Case No.18 dated 29.11.2009 corresponding to G.R.  Case  No.1256  of  2009  under  Sections 465/467/468/471/474/420/506/34  of  the  Penal  Code  should  not  be quashed and/or pass such other or further order or orders as may seem fit and proper.

Material  facts  leading  to  this  Rule  are  that  the  allegation brought against the accused-petitioner is punishable under sections 465/467/468/471/474/420/506/34 of the Penal Code.

The case is now pending for charge hearing.

Feeling aggrieved the accused petitioner preferred the instant application and obtained the present Rule on 21.11.2016.

Heard the learned Deputy Attorney General and perused the

record.

On exploration of the materials on record it transpires that the complainant categorically narrated the manner of crime committed by the accused. In defence the accused denied the entire allegations. So, when there is such denial, the question of innocence does not arise with this regard reliance has been placed in the case of Abdur Rahim alias A.N.M Abdur Rahman Vs. Enamul Haq and another reported in 43 DLR (AD) 173. All that is required at the stage of framing charge is to see whether the prima-facie case regarding commission of certain offence is made out. In the instant case the accused stand indicted for offence  punishable  under  the  same  section.  Cognizance  has  been taken under the said section. We have meticulously examined the allegations made by the complainant and we find that the offence punishable under the above offence has been clearly disclosed in the instant case against the accused. We have gone through the grounds taken in the application under Section 561A of the Code of Criminal Procedure and we find that such grounds are absolutely the disputed question of facts and the same should be decided at the trial. The pleas of the petitioners are nothing but the defence plea. Be that as it may the proposition of law is now well settled that on the basis of defence plea or materials the criminal proceedings should not be stifled before trial; when there is a prima-facie case for going for trial. In view of such facts, the grounds taken in the petition of Misc. case are not the correct exposition of law. Moreso interruption of the course of Justice will set up a wrong precedent by which the course of justice instead of being  advanced  readily  been  stifled  inasmuch  as  the  grounds advanced  before  us  are  not  correct  or  legal  exposition  of  law. Therefore we hold that there are sufficient grounds for proceeding against the accused for going for trial under the same section. In view of the above we failed to discover any merit in this Rule. Thus the Rule having no merit fails.

Since the ground taken by the petitioner is disputed question of fact  and  all  the  submissions  are  settled  principle  by  the  Hon’ble Appellate Division.

 In the light of discussions made above and the preponderant judicial views emerging out of the authorities refer to above we are of the  view  that  the  impugned  proceedings  suffers  from  no  legal infirmities which calls for no interference by this Court.

In view  of foregoing narrative the  Rule is discharged. The order of stay granted earlier stands vacated.

The office is directed to communicate the judgment at once.

Md. Salim, J.

I agree

Hanif/Bo