D/L – 17 27/08/2026 Court No.42 S.Kundu CRR 2040 of 2023 Ajmal Khan Vs. The State of West Bengal & Ors. Mr. Vijay Verma …for the petitioner. Mr. Sourav Mondal Ms. Sabena Khatun Mr. Rony Mondal …for the O.P. No. 2 to 17. Mr. Somnath Adhikary Mr. Madhurai Sinha …for the State. 1. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits candidly that despite repeated attempts, he has received no instructions from his client and is unaware of the current status of the proceedings pending before the learned Trial Court. This revisional application has been pending since the year 2023 without any effective pursuit by the petitioner. 2. By this application under Section 401 read with Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, the petitioner has challenged the legality, propriety, and correctness of Order No. 27 dated 21st February, 2023, passed by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Contai, in connection with G.R. Case No. 461 of 2021 (arising out of Egra Police Station Case No. 2 207 of 2021 dated 14th May, 2021 under Sections 341, 323, 325, 307, 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code), along with the subsequent Charge Sheet No. 232 of 2022 dated 16th March, 2022 and Supplementary Charge Sheet No. 779 of 2022 dated 24th September, 2022 filed under Sections 341, 325, 304A/34 of the Indian Penal Code. 3. I have perused the impugned order whereby the learned Magistrate rejected the prayer of the de-facto complainant for re-investigation of the case. Upon hearing both sides and carefully examining the injury reports, statements of witnesses, and other materials collected by the Investigating Officer in the case diary, the learned Magistrate was satisfied that there was no patent flaw or perversity in the investigation warranting a reinvestigation. The learned Magistrate rightly observed that the petitioner is not remediless and will have full opportunity to adduce evidence and invoke appropriate legal provisions during the course of the trial. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the State submits that the impugned order suffers from no patent illegality or jurisdictional error, as the discretion vested in the learned Magistrate has been exercised judiciously, 3 leaving all remedies open to the petitioner at the appropriate stages of charge framing and trial. 5. Having heard the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the State, perused the case records, and examined the impugned order, I find no material irregularity, illegality, or impropriety in the order passed by the court below. Nor do I find any exceptional circumstance or abuse of the process of Court that would call for interference by this Court in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction at this belated stage. 6. Consequently, the revisional application, being CRR 2040 of 2023, stands dismissed. 7. There shall be no order as to costs. 8. Interim order, if any, stands vacated. 9. Urgent photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for, be supplied to the parties upon compliance with all necessary formalities. (Uday Kumar, J.)