MAMUD HOSSEN KHADIM v. UTTAM SARKAR AND ANR
Court: High Court of Tripura
Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BISWAJIT PALIT
Judgment date:
Case summary
High Court of Tripura judgment dated 2025-02-10. MAMUD HOSSEN KHADIM v. UTTAM SARKAR AND ANR. Read the judgment and case details on LawSphereX.
Judgment text
HIGH COURT OF TRIPURA AGARTALA Crl. L. P. No. 15 of 2024 in Crl. A. No. 23 of 2024 Mamud Hossen Khadim -----Petitioner(s) Versus Sri Uttam Sarkar & Anr. -----Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Subham Majumder, Adv. For Respondent(s) : Mr. Raju Datta, P. P. HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE BISWAJIT PALIT Order 10/02/2025 Learned Counsel, Mr. Subham Majumder is present for the petitioner-appellant. Learned P. P. , Mr. Raju Datta is present for the State-respondent. Today also none appeared on behalf of private-respondent No. 1, Sri Uttam Sarkar. From the record it appears that as per order of the Court notice upon private-respondent has been duly served through ‘Dasti’ service and accordingly, an affidavit has been sworn in this regard. The petitioner-appellant has challenged the order dated st 05. 07. 2024 passed by Learned J. M. 1 Class, Court No. 3, Udaipur, Gomati Tripura in connection with case No. CR(NI) 54 of 2021 under Section 138 N. I.
Act by way of filing appeal and along with the petition another application under Section 378(4) of Cr. P. C. is filed for granting Special Leave to Appeal to allow the appeal as required by law. Today in course of hearing, Learned Counsel for the petitioner-appellant has drawn the attention of the Court st referring the said order of the Learned J. M. 1 Class, Udaipur and submitted that the petitioner-appellant on that day could not appear before the Learned Court below and E/R of bailable warrant of arrest issued against the respondent-accused was not returned and the Learned Court below on the ground that on previous two consecutive dates the petitioner-appellant remained absent, dismissed the case for non-prosecution with a view that no purpose would be served by keeping the case alive. Hence, the petitioner-appellant has preferred this appeal before the High Court for setting aside the said order. Learned P. P.
, on the other hand, fairly submitted that once the bailable warrant of arrest was issued, so, till execution of the warrant of arrest there was no scope to dismiss the case for non-prosecution, since the case was at the stage of 313 of Cr. P. C. So, Learned P. P. submitted that the order passed by Learned Court below was passed not in-accordance-with law. I have heard both the sides and on perusal of the order, it appears that there is material for proceeding with the appeal and accordingly, the application for granting Special Leave to Appeal filed by the petitioner-appellant is hereby allowed under Section 378(4) of Cr. P. C. Hence, Crl. L. P. No. 15 of 2024 arising out of Crl. A. No. 23 of 2024 is hereby allowed. JUDGE Digitally signed by MOUMITA MOUMITA DATTA DATTA Date: 2025. 02. 11 17:31:55 +05'30' Purnita
Source: Supreme Court eSCR. Dataset: Dattam Labs, CC BY 4.0. Text extracted automatically; compare with the source PDF for layout and accuracy.