31.08.2026 Sl. No.25 Ali Ct.No.42 CRR1642 of 2024 Sanjay Halder & Ors. Vs. The State of West Bengal &Anr. Mr. Ooiseeroop Sinha …..for the State. 1. Despite explicit directions given on the last occasion, none appears to represent the petitioners when the matter is called on. 2. A perusal of the record reveals a consistent pattern of non-appearance, as the parties remained unrepresented even on previous occasions. Considering the prolonged pendency of this revisional application and the absence of representation, this Court proceeds to dispose of the matter on merits based on a careful examination of the materials available on record. 3. The foundational genesis of the criminal proceeding traces back to a written complaint lodged by Joydeb Halder at Baishnabnagar Police Station, registered as Case No. 526 of 2016 dated 4th July, 2016, under Sections 447, 302, and 34 of the Indian Penal Code. The said complaint culminated in Charge Sheet No. 674/17 2 dated 26th November, 2017, submitted under the same sections against 17 accused persons, including the present petitioner, Tapasi Halderfollowing the tragic demise of the victim, who succumbed to severe burn injuries. 4. The primary challenge raised in the instant revisional application is directed toward the quashing of the criminal proceeding. The gravamen of the petitioners' argument is that during the course of investigation, the police recorded the statements of 16 witnesses, none of whom were eyewitnesses to the actual incident, their statements being confined merely to the factum of a dying declaration. It is urged that the prosecution case suffers from inherent infirmities touching the root of the matter, that the petitioners have no connection with the alleged occurrence, and that they have been falsely implicated out of personal animosity and vendetta. 5. I have meticulously perused the materials on record, including the FIR (at page 15 of the application), the written complaint (pages 16–17), the charge-sheet (page 18), the cognizance order passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, and crucially, the judgment dated 26th July, 2023 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track, 2nd Court, Malda, in Sessions Case No. 322 of 2015. 3 6. Upon judicial scrutiny of the trial judgment, a vital and determinative aspect emerges. In Sessions Case No. 322 of 2015, multiple co-accused persons, namely Dipak Halder, Sunil Halder, Chiranjit @ Chitra Halder, Gour Halder, Manoj Halder, Bablu Halder, Chaitanya Halder, Swadhin Halder, Netai Halder, Indrajit Halder, Jeet Halder, Mitrajit Halder, and Anil Halder, faced full-fledged trial, which has now concluded. Significantly, the present petitioners did not participate in that trial, nor did they face the judicial process alongside the co-accused. 7. It is a settled proposition of criminal jurisprudence that once a trial against co-accused persons has reached its culmination and concluded, an absconding or non- participating accused cannot invoke the inherent or revisional jurisdiction of this Court at a belated stage to seek quashing of the proceeding on abstract pleas of false implication, especially when grave and serious allegations involving an offence under Section 302 of the IPC are involved. The petitioners never cooperated with the judicial process, nor did they move any appropriate application during the currency of the trial. This Court is neither the proper forum nor is this the appropriate stage to entertain a prayer for quashing under Section 397/401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure under such circumstances. The allegations are grave, and the law 4 must take its course; the petitioners must surrender and face trial. 8. Having regard to the totality of the circumstances, the gravity of the offence, and the complete lack of merit in the grounds urged, this revisional application is liable to be dismissed. 9. Accordingly, the criminal revisional application stands dismissed on merits. 10. There shall be no order as to costs. 11. Interim order, if any, stands vacated. 12. All parties shall act on the server copy of this order duly downloaded from the official website of the Calcutta High Court. (Uday Kumar, J.)