IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA CRIMINAL REVISIONAL JURISDICTION APPELLATE SIDE PRESENT: THE HON’BLE JUSTICE UDAY KUMAR CRR 1623 OF 2024 SUBODH CHAND BOTHRA & ANR. -VS- STATE OF WEST BENGAL & ANR. For the Petitioners : Mr. Anirban Dutta Mr. Piyush Jain For the Opposite Party No.2 : Mr. Tarique Quasimuddin Mr. Sanchita Chaudhuri, Mr. Adnan Lodi For the State : Mr. Kallol Mondal, Mr. Aditya Tiwari, Mr. P. Karan Singh, Mr. Namrata Chatterjee Reserved on : 22.09.2026 Pronounced on : 22.09.2026 JUDGMENT (ORAL) UDAY KUMAR, J.: – 1. Petitioners have challenged the order dated 14th March, 2024 passed by the learned Chief Judge, City Sessions Court, Calcutta in connection with Criminal Revision No. 31 of 2024, whereby the learned Chief Judge dismissed the revisional application and upheld the orders dated 29th August, 2023 and 1st December, 2003 [sic: 2023] passed by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, 16th Court at Calcutta in connection with G.R. 2 CRR 1623 OF 2024 Case No. 1758 of 2024 arising out of Barabazar P.S. Case No. 384 of 2014 dated June 26, 2014 under Sections 420/406/120B/34 of the Indian Penal Code. 2. Referring to the order dated 29th August, 2023, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that charges were framed without giving the petitioners an opportunity to file an application for discharge under Section 238 of the Cr.P.C. He further refers to the order dated 1st December, 2023 to highlight the irregularity in that order, wherein the learned Magistrate has stated that the date was fixed for evidence, yet the learned advocate representing accused nos. 1 & 2 under Section 205 of Cr.P.C. was present before the Court and received copies under Section 207 of Cr.P.C. on their behalf. 3. Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the said proceedings, they preferred a revisional application before the learned Chief Judge, City Sessions Court, Calcutta. By Order No. 2 dated 14th March, 2024, the learned Chief Judge dismissed the said revisional application on the technical ground that the order dated 29th August, 2023 was not specifically challenged before him, and that the revision only targeted the subsequent order dated 1st December, 2023 when copies under Section 207 were served upon the learned advocate representing accused nos. 1 and 2. 4. Highlighting this irregularity and the failure to comply with the mandatory provisions of Section 207 of the Cr.P.C., learned counsel for the petitioners prays for setting aside the impugned orders and for a 3 CRR 1623 OF 2024 direction upon the learned Trial Court for the conclusion of the trial within a short period. 5. On the contrary, learned counsel for opposite party no. 2 traces the long background of the litigation and refers to the directions passed by a coordinate Bench in CRR 1295 of 2017 on 2nd March, 2022, emphasizing that the matter has been pending for a considerable length of time and ought to be brought to its logical conclusion at the earliest. While acknowledging that any initial violation of mandatory legal provisions must be duly rectified, the opposite party expresses serious concern over the dilatory tactics allegedly adopted by the petitioners in dragging out a proceeding originating from 2014. 6. Heard learned counsel for both parties and perused the materials on record. It is apparent that charges were framed on 29th August, 2023, prior to the proper service and compliance of Section 207 of the Cr.P.C., which constitutes a patent violation of statutory procedure. Furthermore, it is undisputed that the petitioners were effectively deprived of availing their valuable legal right to seek a discharge under Section 238 of the Cr.P.C.—a circumstance which remains uncontested by the learned counsel for the opposite party. 7. In view of the foregoing findings, this Court deems it proper to set aside the impugned orders dated 29th August, 2023, and 1st December, 2023. 8. The learned Magistrate is directed to restart the proceedings strictly in accordance with law, ensuring full compliance with the mandatory 4 CRR 1623 OF 2024 provisions of Section 207 of the Cr.P.C. and affording the accused their due remedies thereafter. 9. Accordingly, the criminal revisional application stands disposed of. 10. The learned Trial Court is directed to make every possible endeavor to dispose of the matter expeditiously, fixing short dates and avoiding unnecessary adjournments. 11. Urgent photostat certified copy of this judgment, if applied for, be supplied to the parties upon compliance with all requisite formalities. (Uday Kumar, J.)