সতর্কীকরণ! বিডি কানুনে প্রকাশিত অধিকাংশ নজীর বিভিন্ন বই ও ওয়েবসাইট থেকে সংগ্রহ করা হয়েছে। এই সকল নজীর এর সঠিকতার বিষয়ে বিডি কানুন কোন নিশ্চয়তা প্রদান করে না। বিডি কানুনে প্রকাশিত নজীর এর উপর নির্ভর এর আগে সংশ্লিষ্ট নজীরটির রেফারেন্স মিলিয়ে নেওয়ার অনুরোধ করা হচ্ছে।
Submissions
59 DLR 683
Submissions on behalf of the Petitioner
Mr Bashiruddin Zindigir, at the very outset, has taken us through the entire assertion made in the first information report of the Kotwali Police Station Case No. 29(3)2000, Annexure-A, and strenuously argued that the alleged Bainapatra dated 18-8-1996 has been the subject matter of a suit for Specific Performance of Contract pending in the Court of Subordinate Judge, First Court, Chittagong being Other Class Suit No. 49 of 1998, filed by the accused No.1, Abul Kalam Azad, the father-in-law of the accused petitioner, Abdur Rahman and, as such, the private complaint as lodged by the complainant opposite party No. 2 claiming the Bainapatra as false is barred under the provision of section 195(1)( c) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Mr Zindigir while confronted with the established principle of law that no defence materials could be considered at the stage of proceeding under section 561 A of the Code of Criminal Procedure, argued that since the complainant opposite party No.1 categorically mentioned the date of the alleged forged Bainapatra and since the affidavit-in opposition filed by the complainant opposite party No.1 categorically admitted the existence of such a suit for Specific Performance of Contract, the necessary relation in between the statement in the petition of complaint and the defence material has been established and, as such, the Bainapatra which is the subject matter of the suit for specific performance of contract became the part of the prosecution material and, as such, this court is entitled to look into the said part of the prosecution material in order to make finding as to the maintainability of the Kotwali Police Station Case No. 29(3)2000. Mr Zindigir further submits, that since the accused petitioner submitted the original copy of the Bainapatra dated 18-8-1996 in the civil Court and since the original Bainapatra, against which the allegation of forgery has been raised before the criminal Court, the instant proceeding in GR Case No. 190 of 2000 is an abuse of the process of the court. Mr Zindigir prayed for making the Rule absolute.
Submissions on behalf of the Opposite Parties
On the other hand, the learned Deputy Attorney-General Mr Md Afsar Hossain, in opposing the Rule, submits that the Kotwali Police Station Case No. 29(3)2000 involved not only section 471 but also involved sections 420, 467 and 468 of the Penal Code which is not scheduled offence under section 195(1)(c) of the Code of Criminal Procedure and, as such, the said Criminal Proceeding, so far it relates to the offence committed under sections 420/467/468 of the Penal Code, is not barred to proceed against the accused petitioner. The learned Deputy Attorney-General further argues that the statement made in the counter-affidavit submitted by the complainant opposite party No.2 shows that the schedule, as mentioned in the Bainapatra dated 18- 8-1996, and the schedule mentioned in the plaint of the Other Class Suit No. 49 of 1998 not being the same, the instant proceeding in GR Case No. 190 of 2000 cannot be termed as an abuse of the process of the court. The learned Deputy Attorney-General, prays for discharge of the Rule.
