11.04.2025 Ct. No. 42 Item No. 24 (SSS) CRR 2802 of 2017 Sk. Rajjak Hossain @ Sk. Rajjak VS. State of West Bengal & Ors. Mr. Joydeep Roy, Ld. Jr. Govt. Advocate. Mr. Dipankar Paramanick …..For the State. Mr. Sagnik Roy Chowdhury, Ld. Adv. Mr. Trijit Mitra, Ld. Amicus Curiae .....For the Petitioner. 1. None appears on behalf of the petitioner nor any accommodation is prayed for. 2. Petitioner prays for quashing of judgment and order dated 14th June, 2017 passed by Learned District and Sessions Judge, Paschim Medinipur in connection with Criminal Revision No. 662 of 2016 arising out of an order dated 22.07.2016 and 07.09.2016 passed by the Learned Chief Judicial Magistrate at Paschim Medinipur in connection with Kotwali Police Station Case No. 492 of 2016 dated 03.06.2016 under Sections 498A/323/307/313/34 of Indian Penal Code and Sections 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act arising out of G.R. Case No. 1839 of 2016. 3. Petitioner did not appear even on last occasion. He was last represented on 28th August, 2017. Several opportunities were given to him. Ultimately, Mr. Sagnik Roy Chowdhury was appointed as Amicus Curiae to represent the petitioner to assist the Court 2 on behalf of the petitioner. 4. Learned Amicus Curiae submits that petitioner and opposite party no.2 are husband and wife. Opposite party no.2 lodged a complaint against revisionist/ petitioner that he subjected her to torture, attempted to murder, compelled to terminate her pregnancy and he forcibly taken away Bajaj Pulsar bearing registration no. WB-34AC/2188 from the possession of her father. Thereafter, her father purchased a car bearing registration No. WB34AH/9497, on loan but said car was also taken away by the petitioner. Consequently, the car was seized on 9th July, 2016 in connection with Kotwali Police Station Case No. 492 of 2016 dated 03.06.2016 under Sections 498A/323/307/313/34 of Indian Penal Code. 5. Subsequently, opposite party no.2 prayed for return of car by her petition dated 22nd July, 2016. Learned Chief Judicial Magistrate at Paschim Medinipur sought a report of I.O. Relying on the report of I.O., Learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Paschim Medinipur passed an order to return the said car to opposite party no.2 on a bond and on the condition that she should not change colour, nature and character of the said vehicle and not to sell and transfer the car till disposal of the case. 6. Petitioner, by filing a petition on 5th August, 2016, prayed for direction upon opposite party to produce 3 the car before the Court but the same was rejected by Learned Trial Court on 7th September, 2016 on the ground that petition is not maintainable because similar prayer of petitioner was already considered on 22nd July, 2016. 7. Petitioner challenged the order dated 22.07.2016 and 07.09.2016 before the Court of Learned District and Sessions Judge, Paschim Medinipur which was rejected on contest on 5th June, 2017. The said order is the subject matter of this revisional application. 8. Learned Amicus Curiae referred Paragraph No.2 at the internal page No.5 of impugned judgment wherein Learned District and Sessions Judge, Paschim Medinipur has observed that if the de facto complainant or her father has already sold out the vehicle in violation of the conditions imposed by the order dated 22.07.2016. The Court of Learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Paschim Medinipur will take necessary step against the said violation and Revisional Court has no jurisdiction to deal with such matters. 9. It also appears from the order dated 22.07.2016 and 07.09.2016 that they are interlocutory in nature, no revision will lie against the interlocutory order. 10. Learned Amicus Curiae submitted that there is no irregularity in the impugned order and instant petition deserved to be dismissed. 4 11. Considering the above facts and circumstances, I do not find any merit in this petition. As such, the instant petition is dismissed. 12. Accordingly, the instant revisional application being CRR 2802 of 2017 is disposed of 13. There will be no order as to costs. 14. Interim order/orders, if any, stands vacated. 15. 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]