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. 6771 OF 2013

Abdur Rahim

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

The State and another

.....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 23.11.2023

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  proceedings  of  Paribesh  Case  No.48  of  2011  under Section 15 of Table 1 of Bangladesh Paribesh Songrokkhon Ain, 1995, now pending before the learned Paribesh Adalat, Sylhet.

Material facts leading to this Rule are that the allegation brought against the accused-petitioner is punishable under section 15 of Table 1 of Bangladesh Paribesh Songrokkhon Ain, 1995,.

The learned Magistrate took cognizance of the offence. The case is now pending for charge hearing.

Feeling aggrieved the accused petitioner preferred the instant application and obtained the present Rule on 10.01.2013.

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.  The  learned  Magistrate  after  considering  the  entire materials on record rightly took cognizance under same section against the  accused.  Moreso,  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. The  truth veracity and effect of evidence which prosecution proposes to adduce is not to be meticulously judged at the stage of framing charge. 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. To that end in view we are at one with learned Judge of the Court below regarding taking cognizance against the accused. 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