In The Supreme Court of Bangladesh

  High Court Division

  (Criminal Miscellaneous Jurisdiction)

PRESENT:

         MR. JUSTICE ABU TAHER MD. SAIFUR RAHMAN

AND

              MR. JUSTICE KHANDAKER DILIRUZZAMAN

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS CASE NO. 35422 OF 2015

Shovan Kumar Das alias Rajon….….Accused petitioner

-Versus-

The State     ….….....Opposite party

None appears.........For the petitioner

Ms. Rezia Sultana, Advocate

….....For the opposite party No. 2 Mr. Imran Ahmed Bhuiyan, DAG with

Mr. Mehadi Hasan (Milon), AAG and

Ms. Aleya Khandker, AAG

........For the state

Heard on: 02.08.2023

Judgment on: The 6th of August, 2023 ABU TAHER MD. SAIFUR RAHMAN, J.

This Rule was issued on an application filed by the accused  petitioner  under  section  561A  of  the  Code  of Criminal Procedure, 1898 calling upon the opposite parties to  show  cause  as  to  why  the  impugned  order  dated 08.04.2015 passed in Nari-O-Shishu Nirjatan Daman Case No. 07 of 2015, arising out of Ganderia Police Station Case No.  28  dated  22.08.2014  under  section  11(Ka)/30  of  the Nari-O-Shishu Nirjatan Daman Ain, 2000, framing of charge under section 11(Ka) of the Nari-O-Shishu Nirjatan Daman

Ain, 2000 against the accused-petitioner now pending in the Court of learned Nari-O-Shishu Nirjatan Daman Tribunal No. 3, Dhaka should not be quashed and/or such other or further order or orders passed as to this Court may seem fit and proper.

At the time of issuance of the Rule, the Court was pleased to stay all further proceeding of the aforesaid Nari- O-Shishu Nirjatan Daman Case No. 07 of 2015 for 6 (six) months which was time to time extended by the Court.

For disposal of the Rule, the relevant facts may briefly be stated as follows:

That the opposite party No. 2 as an informant lodged an FIR with the local police station alleging inter alia that his daughter Mamata Rani Paul alias Tumpa was married with the accused petitioner on 01.05.2014 and just after 2 (two) months  her  husband  the  accused  petitioner  started  ill treatment  with  his  daughter  for  dowry.  On  the  date  of occurrence dated 22.08.2014 his daughter made a phone to him and thereby requested him to took her away from her house as being she was heavily tortured by her husband along with his other family members for dowry, otherwise they would kill her. Thereafter, the informant went to the house of his daughter and found her dead body in the house of the accused petitioner. On being asked, they informed him that she has committed suicide. Hence, the aforesaid case

was filed against the accused petitioner and others under section  11(Ka)/30  of  the  Nari-O-Shishu  Nirjatan  Daman Ain, 2000. After that the accused petitioner was arrested by the police on the same day and subsequently he made a confessional statement before the Magistrate on 10.10.2014. After investigation police submitted a charge sheet against the accused petitioner under section 11(Ka) of the Nari-O- Shishu Nirjatan Daman Ain, 2000. After that the charge was framed against the accused petitioner on 08.04.2015 under section 11(Ka) of the Nari-O-Shishu Nirjatan Daman Ain, 2000. Being aggrieved, the accused petitioner preferred this application before this Court under section 561A of the Code of  Criminal  Procedure  for  quashing  the  impugned  order dated 08.04.2015 and obtained the instant Rule and stay.

None appears for the accused petitioner to support the Rule.

However,  the  accused  petitioner  has  stated  in  his application that there is no specific allegation of date, time and place as to when the accused petitioner demanded dowry from the victim and as such the order of framing charge against the accused petitioner is liable to be quashed.

Mr.  Imran  Ahmed  Bhuiyan,  the  learned  Deputy Attorney General for the state submits that in the instant case there is a specific allegation against the accused petitioner. Moreover,  the  accused  petitioner  has  also  made  a confessional statement before the learned Magistrate and as such the instant Rule is liable to be discharged.

Ms.  Rezia  Sultana,  the  learned  Advocate  for  the opposite party No. 2 concedes with the submissions of the the learned Deputy Attorney General for the state.

Heard the submissions of the learned Advocate for the opposite  parties  and  perused  the  materials  on  record thoroughly.

On perusal of the petitioner’s application it transpires that  the  impugned  order  is  appealable  order  and  without preferring an appeal the accused petitioner filed the instant application before this Court under section 561A of the Code of Criminal Procedure which is not maintainable.

We have to keep in mind that the jurisdiction under section 561A is of an extraordinary nature intended to be used only in extraordinary cases where there is no other remedy available and cannot be utilized when there is other express remedy provided in the statute.

Since,  the  impugned  order  is  appealable  order  the instant  application  is  not  maintainable.  We  have  further noticed that in the instant case, the accused petitioner has also made a confessional statement under section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

Under the given facts and circumstances of the case and  the  reasons  as  stated  above,  we  do  not  find  any substance of this Rule.

As a result, the Rule is discharged.

The  order  of  stay  granted  earlier  by  this  Court  is hereby stand vacated.

The trial Court is hereby directed to proceed with the case expeditiously in accordance with law.

Communicate this judgment and order at once.

Khandaker Diliruzzaman, J:

I agree