8.03.2025 Sl. No. 18 Ct. No.42 S.A. CRR 2155 of 2017 With CRAN 2 of 2018 (Old No. CRAN 304 of 2018) Buddhadeb Gayen & Anr. Vs. State of West Bengal & Anr. Mr. Joydeep Roy Mr. Dipankar Paramanick …for the State This matter appeared in the list after 7 years. None appeared on behalf of the petitioners, nor any accommodation was prayed for. Petitioners were not represented, even on previous occasion. Administrative notice issued pursuant to the order dated 29.11.2024 could not be served on petitioners as they have changed their residence. The opposite party no.2 did not appear despite service of administrative notice. However, the State is represented. Indubitably, the petitioners made an application under Section 482 read with Section 401 of Code of Criminal Procedure for quashing or setting aside of Mograhat P.S. Case No.18/2017 dated 12.01.2017 under Sections 420/467/468/471/120B of IPC corresponding to G.R. Case No.115 of 2017 pending before the court of learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Diamond Harbour, 24-Parganas (South) on the grounds stated therein. Learned Advocate for the State submitted that the allegations are serious in nature and could only be decided on evidence of witnesses. Therefore, he prayed for dismissal of this application, as it has no merit therein. 2 The instant G.R. Case No.115 of 2017 was started on the complaint of Mantu Gayen made under Section 156 of Code of Criminal Procedure to the Court of Learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Diamond Harbour under Sections 420/467/468/471/120B of Indian Penal Code against the petitioners. The proceeding of said case has been stalled by the “order of a stay” granted on 10th July, 2017 by this Court. The petitioners neither represented nor taken any endeavour to appear or to mention this matter in the meantime, despite several opportunities, due to which the instant revisional application remained pending since 04.07.2017. Any proceeding can be quashed as per the provision of Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. Certain guidelines are also enumerated by the Courts in this regard. However, it is settled law that this extraordinary power should be exercised scarcely. In view of the aforesaid discussion, I do not find any merit in this case, thus deserved to be dismissed. Accordingly, the instant revisional application being CRR 2155 of 2022 along with CRAN 2 of 2018 (Old No. CRAN 304 of 2018), is dismissed on the basis of materials available on record. There is no order as to costs. Interim order, if any, stands vacated. Learned Trial Court is at liberty to proceed with the trial. Urgent photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for, be supplied to the learned advocates for the parties on usual undertakings. (Uday Kumar, J.)