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. 9244 OF 2004

  Mizanur Rahman Bhuiyan and another

    …...Accused-petitioners  -Versus-

The State and another….....Opposite parties

None appears.....................For the accused petitioners None appears...............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 Judgment on: The 10th of August, 2023

ABU TAHER MD. SAIFUR RAHMAN, J.

This Rule was issued on an application filed by the accused petitioners under section 561A of the Code of Criminal  Procedure,  1898  calling  upon  the  opposite parties to show cause as to why the proceedings of C.R. Case  No.P-2343/2003  under  sections  420/406  of  the penal  Code  now  pending  in  the  Court  of  Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, 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 proceedings of the aforesaid C.R. Case No. P-2343/2003 for 3 (three) months from the date 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 complainant filed a  C.R.  Case  No.  2343  of  2003  against  the  accused petitioner  under  sections  420/406  of  the  Penal  Code alleging inter alia that the complainant purchased one Diganta Car from the accused petitioners, the owner of the  Meghna  Automobiles  Limited.  At  the  time  of purchasing  the  car,  the  accused  petitioners  paid  Tk. 4,75,000/- (Taka Four lac and Seventy-five thousand) and  the  rest  of  Tk.  4,00,000/-  (Taka  Four  lac)  was arranged  from  the  Dutch  Bangla  Bank  as  loan. Accordingly, all the documents including the registration of the said car stand in the name of the said bank. As per contact,  the  accused  petitioners  did  not  provide  any service  to  the  complainant.  Hence,  the  aforesaid  case was filed against the accused petitioners under sections 420/406 of the Penal Code. 

None appears for the accused petitioners to support

the Rule.

However,  the  accused  petitioners  have  stated  in their  application  that  there  is  no  specific  allegation against them. The instant proceeding was initiated with a co-lateral purpose which is liable to be quashed.

Mr.  Imran  Ahmed  Bhuiyan,  the  learned  Deputy Attorney General for the opposite party No. 1 submits that as per the petition of complaint, there is a specific allegation against the accused petitioners, and as such the accused petitioners have no ground to invoke the provision  of  section  561A  of  the  Code  of  Criminal Procedure. Accordingly, the instant Rule is liable to be discharged.

No one appears for the complainant opposite party No. 2.

Heard the submissions of the learned Advocate for the opposite party No. 1 and perused materials on record thoroughly.

On  perusal  of  the  petition  of  complaint,  it transpires that there is a prima facie case against the accused petitioners. We have further observed that the charge is not framed against the accused petitioners as yet. Moreover, the contention as raised by the accused petitioners is a matter of fact which cannot be decided at this stage 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 substances of the Rule.

As a result, the Rule is discharged.

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

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

Communicate this judgment and order at once.

Khandaker Diliruzzaman, J:

I agree