Bench

Mr. Justice Bhishmadev Chakrabortty And

Mr. Justice A.K.M. Zahirul Haq

Criminal Miscellaneous Case No. 27692 of 2018

Mst. Kalpana Akter                        ...... petitioner

-Versus-

The State and another           ...... opposite parties No one appears for the petitioner

Mr. Sujit Sengupta, Advocate

                            ...... for added opposite party 4

        Judgment on 11.12.2024

Bhishmadev Chakrabortty, J:

This Rule was issued calling upon the opposite parties to show cause as to why order of the Nari-o-Shishu Nirjatan Daman Tribunal,  Kishoregonj  passed  on  23.08.2017  in  Nari-o-Shishu Nirjatan  Daman  Tribunal  Case  No.496  of  2017  arising  out  of Kishoregonj Police Station Case No.12(2) of 2017 corresponding to GR Case No.66(2) of 2017 under sections 9(1) and 30 of the Nari- o-Shishu Nirjatan Daman Ain, 2000 (the Ain, 2000) discharging the accused-opposite parties 1-2 from the case should not be quashed and/or such other or further order or orders passed to this Court may seem fit and proper.

No one appears for the petitioner although the matter has been appearing in the daily cause list for a couple of days with the name of the learned Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr.  Sujit  Sengupta,  learned  Advocate  for  added  opposite party 4 submits that this opposite party is accused 1 in the first information  report  (FIR).  Due  to  the  order  of  stay  all  further proceedings of the case passed by this Court he could not file any application for bail before the concerned Tribunal. In the premises above, he prays for disposing the Rule and vacating the order of stay passed by this Court.

We have considered the submissions of the learned Advocate for added opposite party 4, gone through the rule petition and the documents  appended  thereto.  It  transpires  that  the informant  as petitioner approached this Court against the order of discharging opposite parties 1 and 2 herein from the case who were accused 3 and 4 in the FIR respectively. On going through the FIR, statements of the victim recorded under section 22 of the Ain, 2000 and the confession of accused 1 named in the FIR Shohag alias Kabiraj Saiful Islam, we do not find any specific allegation of committing rape or abetting the offence against accused 3 and 4 named in the FIR  who  are  opposite  parties  1  and  2  herein  although  police submitted  charge  sheet  against  them.  We  do  not  find  that  any offence of abetment under section 30 of the Ain, 2000 has been disclosed against opposite parties 1 and 2. Learned Judge of the Tribunal on correct appreciation of fact and law discharged them which calls for no interference under inherent jurisdiction of this Court. Moreover, the order of discharging opposite parties 1 and 2 has  been  passed  by  a  Nari-o-Shishu  Nirjatan  Daman  Tribunal which could have been challenged by the informant by filing an appeal before this Court under section 28 of the Ain, 2000. But without doing so, the informant filed this application under section 561A of the Code of Criminal Procedure which is found also not maintainable.

In view of the aforesaid premises, we find no substance in this Rule on merit as well as on maintainability. Accordingly, the Rule is discharged. The order of stay stands vacated. The impugned order dated 23.08.2017 passed by the Tribunal is upheld. The case will proceed against accused 1 and 2 named in the FIR accordingly.

However,  the  Tribunal  is  directed  to  dispose  of  the  case expeditiously.

Communicate  this  judgment  and  order  to  the  concerned

Tribunal. 

A.K.M. Zahirul Huq, J:

                                                   I agree.