In The Supreme Court of Bangladesh

  High Court Division

  (Criminal Miscellaneous Jurisdiction)

PRESENT:

         MR. JUSTICE ABU TAHER MD. SAIFUR RAHMAN

AND

   MR. JUSTICE MD. BASHIR ULLAH

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS CASE NO. 69291 OF 2023

Toslima................….…...Informant-petitioner 

-Versus-

The State and others….….....Opposite parties

Mr. Mohammad Sajjadur Rahman, Advocate

.........For the informant petitioner Ms. Nigar Sultana, Advocate

.......For the opposite party No. 2

Mr. K.M. Masud Rumy, DAG with

Mr. Mehadi Hasan (Milon), AAG and

Ms. Aleya Khandker, AAG

........For the state

Heard on: 24.01.2024 and 05.02.2024

Judgment on: The 28th of February, 2024 ABU TAHER MD. SAIFUR RAHMAN, J.

This Rule was issued on an application filed by the accused-petitioner under section 561-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure calling upon the opposite parties to show  cause  as  to  why  the  judgment  and  order  of acquittal  dated  29.10.2019  passed  by  the  learned Bicharak  (Sessions  Judge)  Nari-O-Shishu  Nirjatan Daman  Tribunal  No.  1,  Chattogram  in  Nari-O-Shishu Case No. 1413 of 2014, arising out of G.R. Case No. 274

of 2014, corresponding to Bashkhali Police Station Case No. 26 dated 27.09.2014 under sections 10 and 30 of the Nari-O-Shishu Nirjatan Daman Ain, 2000 (as amended in-2003) should not be set aside and/or such other or further order or orders passed as to this Court may seem fit and proper.

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

That one Toslima as an informant lodged an FIR with the local police station alleging inter alia that all the FIR named accused persons are close relatives of each other and known as very bad persons in her locality. On the date of occurrence dated 26.09.2014 at around 7.00 a.m. the accused No. 1 came to the police of occurrence while she was bathing on the bank of the pond used by both  parties  and  made  sexually  harassing  remarks against her will. Thereafter she forbade him not to speak such  words  and  shouted  loudly.  The  witnesses  came running to the spot and witnessed the incident. Hence, the aforesaid case was filed against them under section 10/30 of the Nari-O-Shishu Nirjatan Daman Ain, 2000. Thereafter  all  the  accused  appeared  before  the  Court below  and  obtained  bail.  After  investigation  police submitted  a  charge  sheet  against  them  under  section 10/30 of the Nari-O-Shishu Nirjatan Daman Ain, 2000. After  the  conclusion  of  the  evidence,  the  learned Tribunal acquitted all the accused. Being aggrieved, the informant petitioner preferred this application before this Court  under  section  561A  of  the  Code  of  Criminal Procedure  for  quashing  the  impugned  judgment  and order  of  acquittal  dated  29.10.2019  and  obtained  the instant Rule and stay.

Mr.  Mohammad  Sajjadur  Rahman,  the  learned Advocate  for  the  accused  petitioner  submits  that  the learned  Tribunal  without  considering  the  FIR,  charge sheet, and the deposition of P.W. 1 to P.W.5 passed the impugned judgment and order of acquittal which is liable to be set aside. 

Ms. Nigar Sultana, the learned Advocate for the opposite  party  No.  2  submits  that  on  perusal  of  the materials  on  record,  the  learned  Tribunal  passed  the impugned judgment and order of acquittal which does not  call  for  any  interference  by  this  Court  under  the jurisdiction of section 561A of the Code of Criminal Procedure and as such the instant Rule is liable to be discharged.

Heard the submissions of the learned Advocates of both sides and perused the impugned judgment and order along with other materials on record thoroughly.

On perusal of the relevant FIR, charge sheet, and the impugned judgment it transpires that this is a case of no  evidence  and as  such  the  learned  Tribunal  rightly passed the impugned judgment and order of acquittal which does not call for any interference by this Court under the jurisdiction of section 561A 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.

Communicate this judgment and order at once.

Md. Bashir Ullah, J:

I agree