10 29.07.2026 Jks Ct. No.42 CRR 2569 of 2017 With CRAN 1 of 2017 (Old CRAN No.4260 of 2017) Braja Gopal Mondal Vs. The State of West Bengal Mr. P. Karan Singh … … for the State 1. When the matter is called on for hearing, there is a conspicuous absence on the part of the petitioner, with no representation being put forth to advance the cause. 2. A careful scrutiny of the records reveals that this revisional application has been pending before this Court since 2017. It appears from the order dated 7th August, 2017, that the petitioner was last represented before this Bench. The matter has been appearing in the list since 26th April, 2024, on which date the department was directed to issue administrative notices upon both the petitioner and the opposite party. In compliance therewith, notices were duly served, and as evidenced by the report dated 16th May, 2024, the notice upon the petitioner has already been served in accordance with law. Despite such proper and effective service, the petitioner has voluntarily and deliberately opted to stay away from these proceedings. 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 litigation. It is a cardinal principle of the administration of criminal justice that criminal proceedings and revisional remedies 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 extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 read with Sections 397/401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, secure an initial protective shield, and thereafter go into hibernation to frustrate the course of justice. 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 petitioner has preferred this revisional application under Section 482 read with Sections 397 and 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, seeking the quashing and setting aside of the order dated 1st April, 2017, passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court-II, Bongaon, in connection with Sessions Case No. 150 of 2015, arising out of Gopalnagar Police Station Case No. 164 of 2005 dated 20th November, 2005, under Sections 302/201 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, corresponding to G.R. Case No. 1139 of 2005, pursuant to which a charge-sheet was subsequently submitted under the same Sections. 5. I have meticulously perused the impugned order dated 1st April, 2017, whereby the learned Trial Court took cognizance and initiated proceedings under Section 193 of the Indian Penal Code against the petitioner. The exercise of power under Section 193 of the IPC relating to the production or utilization of fabricated 2 evidence or perjury in a matter exclusively triable by a Court of Sessions is a vital statutory safeguard designed to preserve the sanctity of judicial trials. When materials emerging from the substantive sessions trial strongly indicate that a witness or participant has deliberately attempted to pervert the course of justice by introducing falsehoods, the Court of Sessions is fully empowered and duty-bound to take corrective cognizance to ensure that the stream of justice remains unpolluted. 6. A plain reading of the impugned order reveals that the learned Additional Sessions Judge has applied a judicious mind to the evidence and records of the parent sessions trial, explicitly identifying the discrepancies and materials that warranted the invocation of Section 193 of the IPC against the petitioner. The court below has passed a comprehensive, reasoned order adhering to the procedural mandates of law, affording no room for the allegation of arbitrariness or non-application of mind. 7. Upon a thorough appraisal of the factual matrix, case records, and legal principles, 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 inherent or revisional jurisdiction. When the challenge lacks substance on merits and the petitioner demonstrates a total lack of bona fides by abandoning the proceedings, equity and law both dictate that the judicial clock cannot be turned back to reward indolence or an unjustified attempt to evade accountability under the law. 3 8. In view of the aforesaid comprehensive discussions and overarching reasons, the instant revisional application, being C.R.R. No. 2569 of 2017, along with the connected application, being CRAN 1 of 2017, are hereby dismissed. 9. Any interim order, if subsisting, stands vacated. 10. There shall be no order as to costs. 11. Photostat copy of this order, if applied for, be given to the parties upon compliance of all requisite formalities. (Uday Kumar, J.) 4