262 7.7.2025 sb CRR 1688 of 2019 Sri Ranajit Saha Vs. The State of West Bengal Ms. Debamwita Pramanick Mr. Abdul Masood …for the petitioner Learned counsel for the State is not represented. In this application, the petitioner challenged the order no. 9 dated 19th June, 2019 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Tract Court-I, Sealdah in connection with Sessions case no. 29(11) of 2017. By the impugned order, the court below rejected the petitioner’s application, filed under Section 231(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, on the ground that the copy of said petition has not been served upon the learned Additional Public Prosecutor and also on the ground that the same was not moved before the court. Being aggrieved by the said order, learned counsel for the petitioner Ms. Pramanick submits that learned court below failed to appreciate that the entire allegations of the defacto- complainant, even if taken at face value, would at most be legally accepted as a case of consensual sex between two adults and on failure to obtain monetary considerations from the accused persons, the defacto-complainant made out a case of rape falsely. Therefore when the Court below expressed it’s desire that the cross-examination of defacto complainant has to be started, the contention of learned Advocate for the petitioner/accused was 2 that there was a necessity to file an application under Section 231(2) to enable in the facts and circumstances of the case to examine and cross-examine investigating officer first therefore to cross-examine defacto complainant. The petition under Section 231(2) of the Code filed by the petitioner inter alia harped to the effect that prima facie there appeared to be a mechanical manner of arraigning the petitioner herein as an accused by the investigating agency and as such, the attempt to have the investigating agency be cross examined, before the cross examination of defacto-complainant. She further submits that the court erroneously recorded that the petitioner declined to cross examine the PW 1, which is not true but the petitioner only wants to cross examine PW 1 i.e. defacto complainant after the cross examination of the investigating officer. M/S Pramanick strenuously argued that the court below by rejecting the prayer made by the petitioner under Section 231(2) of the Code, has practically denied the substantive right of cross examination by the accused as sought under Section 231(2) of the Code to a later stage and thereby has caused miscarriage of justice and abuse of process of law and as such, the petitioner prays for a direction order for consideration of their prayer in accordance with law by the court below. Having heard learned counsel for the petitioner, it appears that the reason for rejection of the petitioner’s application under Section 231(2) as recorded in the order is on the ground that the copy of petition was not served upon the learned Additional Public Prosecutor. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that 3 though the petitioner’s counsel was all along present in the court. but the court recorded that the petition was not moved. Having considered the submissions made by the petitioner, I find that the order impugned is not a speaking order on merit but has been passed on technical considerations. In such view of the matter, the part of the impugned order dated 19th June, 2019, which deals with the recording of rejection of the petitioner’s application under Section 231(2) of the Code, is hereby set aside. Learned court below is directed to hear the petitioner’s application filed under Section 231(2) of the Code on merit after giving opportunity to both the parties to contest and to pass a reasoned order before proceeding further with the case. The petitioner is also directed to serve a copy of the application filed under Section 231(2) upon the learned Additional Public Prosecutor within a week and the court below will make every endeavour to dispose of such application preferably within a period of four weeks from the date of communication of this order uninfluenced by any observation made herein. CRR 1688 of 2019 is accordingly disposed of. Urgent photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for, be given to the parties upon compliance of all requisite formalities. (Dr. Ajoy Kumar Mukherjee, J.)