13 29.07.2026 Jks Ct. No.42 CRR 2677 of 2017 Parbati Dhara & Anr Vs. State of West Bengal & Anr. Mr. P. Karan Singh … … for the State 1. When the matter is called on for hearing, there is a conspicuous absence on behalf of the petitioner, with no representation being put forth to advance the cause. 2. A bare scrutiny of the records reveals that this revisional application has been pending before this Court since 2017. Despite repeated opportunities extended to the petitioner over a span of nearly a decade to prosecute the litigation, the petitioner has consistently chosen to stay away. As evidenced by the office report dated 15th January, 2025, administrative notice was duly and properly served upon the petitioner. 3. The persistent and deliberate absence of the petitioner leaves no manner of doubt that he has completely abandoned any genuine intent to prosecute this proceeding. It is a cardinal principle of the administration of criminal justice that criminal proceedings, particularly those concerning maintenance and sustenance, cannot be permitted to remain in a state of perpetual limbo through the strategic and deliberate default of a litigant. The right to speedy justice and the expeditious culmination of judicial proceedings are integral facets of the rule of law. A party cannot invoke the supervisory jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, secure an initial breathing space, and thereafter go into hibernation to frustrate the statutory entitlement of a dependent wife or family member. Such systemic abuse of the judicial process must be firmly deprecated. Accordingly, this Court proceeds to examine and evaluate the merits of the challenge based on the materials available on record. 4. The instant revisional application has been preferred under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, challenging the order dated 1st April, 2027, passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Kalna, Burdwan, in M.C. Case No. 116 of 2016, arising out of a proceeding under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. 5. I have meticulously perused the impugned order and comprehensively evaluated the factual matrix, pleadings, and evidence on record. The legislative intent behind Section 125 of the Cr.P.C. is a measure of social justice designed to prevent vagrancy and destitution by compelling a person with sufficient means to support their neglected spouse, child, or parents. The learned trial Magistrate has assessed the material parameters and evidence with due care, arriving at a reasoned and balanced conclusion. Upon a thorough appraisal, this Court fails to detect any patent irregularity, palpable illegality, jurisdictional error, or perversity in the impugned order that would shock the judicial conscience or warrant the invocation of our supervisory jurisdiction. The findings rendered by the court below are based on a plausible appreciation of facts and do not call for any interference. 6. When the challenge lacks substance on merits and the petitioner demonstrates a total lack of bona fides by abandoning the 2 proceedings, equity and law both dictate that the judicial clock cannot be turned back to reward indolence. 7. In view of the aforesaid comprehensive discussions and overarching reasons, the instant revisional application, being C.R.R. No. 2677 of 2017, is hereby dismissed. 8. Any interim order, if subsisting, stands vacated forthwith. 9. There is no order as to costs. 10. Photostat copy of this order, if applied for, be given to the parties upon compliance of all requisite formalities. (Uday Kumar, J.) 3