CRR/1011/2018 of SAMIRAN NANDI @ SAMIRAN NANDY Vs STATE OF WEST BENGAL AND ORS on 2 September 2026

1. Affidavit of service filed by the petitioner is taken on record.

2. This revisional application has been filed against the order passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court-1, Howrah in Criminal Revision No.10 of 2012, whereby the revisional application was dismissed.

3. The petitioner appears in person. It is his specific contention that he lodged a complaint against the opposite party nos.2 to 10 alleging that when he was studying under Arabinda Jana being the student of Class - XI, he completed his Class - XII and tried to be admitted into graduation level but despite appearing for entrance examination he could not pursue it due to non-cooperation of the college authorities. Furthermore, the opposite parties were the private tutors, who did not cooperate. The Tantriks/opposite party also mislead him and therefore, lodged a complaint due to non-cooperation of those persons. The learned Magistrate fixed the date for examining the complaint under Section 200 of the Code and the present complainant was examined and was discharged.

4. It is specifically observed by the learned Magistrate, no specific allegation made against the complainant to attract the provision of Indian Penal Code against the person named by him. Therefore, prima facie, no case has been made out to pass any order to enquire the matter. Challenging the said order, the petitioner preferred revisional application which was heard by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court – I, Howrah and dismissed the same.

5. On perusal of the said order, it transpires that the revisional application was heard in part on 08.01.2011 and on the date of hearing, stage was set for judgment. On 9th January, 2018, the matter was heard and order was passed dismissing the revisional application. Petitioner (in person) submits that order was passed ex parte since he did not appear before the court and he was not given opportunity to place his case.

6. Being aggrieved by the same, he lodged a complaint before the Bar Council of West Bengal and before many other authorities, however, no action has been taken and hence, this revisional application has been preferred challenging the said order.

7. Learned counsel representing the State, on the other hand, submits that there is no iota of materials or ingredient to attract any of the provision of the offence of the Indian Penal Code and the Court after examining the complainant, passed such order, which was subsequently affirmed by the revisional court with cogent reasons. Hence, there is no question to entertain the revisional application.

8. On a close scrutiny of the order dated 9th January, 2018, it transpires that the petitioner was duly represented before the learned Court by his advocate and duly considered the materials on record.

9. It was further recorded that the “learned advocate for the petitioner could not actually show as to why the impugned order was bad in law and for this none is to be blamed excepting his client’s strange, garbled and confusing case”. Therefore by no stretch of imagination it can be said that the petitioner was not given opportunity of hearing and the matter was heard ex-parte merely because he himself was not present.

10. The learned Court was further of the view that even the Foreign Authorities were not spared – complains were sent to the F.B.I., C.I.A., Interpole, UN Security Council and the General Assembly. Finally, realizing that every institution except the Court had been bothered, the complainant was lodged before the learned C.J.M., Howrah. Further observation made therein that no cognizance could have been taken on the complainant as it did not disclose any offence at all.

11. The submission made by the petitioner is prima facie incoherent in nature and has got no basis for taking into consideration .The contents of the written complaint suffers from any materials and failed to disclose commission of any offence at all.

12. In view of that, this Court do not find any reason to interfere with the order passed by the learned revisional court, which affirmed the order passed by the learned C.J.M. Court. This Court can at best express sympathy towards the petitioner (in person), who has been frustrated for not being able to pursue his further career due to con co-operation by his teacher and other persons but and that per se do not attract any criminal offence against any of the persons.

13. Hence, the order impugned warrants no interference and this revisional application stands dismissed.

14. The department is directed to sent down the TCR along with the copy of the concerned Court.

15. Urgent Photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for, be given to the parties, upon compliance of necessary formalities. (CHAITALI CHATTERJEE (DAS), J.)