JUDGMENT

Dr. Arijit Pasayat, J.—

1. Leave granted.

2. Challenge in this appeal is to the judgment of a learned Single Judge of the Calcutta High Court quashing the cognizance taken by learned Addl. District and Sessions Judge, 4th Court Alipore in Canning PS case No. 160 relating to offences punishable under Section 302/34/120B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (in short the ‘IPC’) read with Section 25 and 27 of the Arms Act, 1959 (in short the ‘Arms Act’) pending trial before the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate District South 24 Parganas.

3. Background facts in a nutshell are as follows:

A complaint was lodged by the appellant with the Inspector in charge of Canning police station alleging that on 25.12.2000 at about 12 noon when his son Dipak Mirdha was in a saloon under the name and style “Sundaram” at Canning bus stand, he suddenly sustained a gunshot injury on his person. Upon hearing the sound of such gunshot and the chaos which resulted thereby, the third son of the complainant rushed to the spot. With the help of others the victim was shifted to Canning Hospital where he was declared dead. There was previous enmity between the victim and one Azimuddin Laskar of Basanti Police Station and Kartick Bose of Canning Police Station over the decoration of Canning Dock Ferry Ghat. In 1999, one Anil Thakur was murdered by some antisocial elements near Canning Hospital. Arnab Roy, Pradhan of Dighirpar Gram Panchayat, falsely implicated the complainant’s son being the victim, in connection with that murder.

On the basis of such complaint, Canning P.S. case No.160 dated 25.12.2000 was started. After completion of investigation, the Investigating Authority submitted chargesheet No. 141 dated 2.9.07.2001 implicating Animesh Halder @ Kuche, Rajesh Dhali, Selim Gayan, Rafique Dhali and Rajab Ali @ Doktar as accused persons. On the basis of such chargesheet, the Learned Court of Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Alipore, by order dated 31.08.2001 took cognizance of offences under sections 302/34/120B of the Indian Penal Code read with Section 25/27 of the Arms Act and directed issuance of warrants of arrest against the absconding accused persons. After about 27 months i.e. on 27.2.03 the defacto complainant i.e. the present appellant filed an application before the Ld. Court of Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate praying for direction upon the DIG, CID, West Bengal to cause further investigation in terms of Section 173(8) of the Code of Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (in short the ‘Code’) .

Learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Alipore, by order dated 27.2.2003, in response to such prayer directed the DIG, CID, West Bengal, to investigate the aforesaid case under Section 173(8) of the Code.

The learned court by order dated 9.6.2005 directed issuance of warrant of arrest which was issued against the respondent no.1.

Being aggrieved by the said order dated 27.2.003 and order dated 9.6.2005, the respondent no.1 moved a revisional application being Criminal Motion No. 484 of 2005 before the Learned Sessions Judge, Alipore. Learned 4th Court of Additional. Sessions Judge, Alipore, who by order dated 13.3.2006 rejected the application on the ground that there was no scope to reopen the matter in view of an earlier application filed by one Arnab Roy, against the said dated 27.2.2003 and disposal of the said application being Criminal Motion No. 100/03 by order dated 21.1.2004.

4. Learned counsel for the respondent no.1 referring to the backdrop of the present case submitted that admittedly after completion of investigation of the case under reference police authority submitted chargesheet for the offences which include a serious offence under section 302 of Indian Penal Code. The Learned Court on receipt of the said chargesheet took cognizance of the offences. It could be that the FIR named accused persons were left out in the chargesheet, whereas few others were implicated.

5. It cannot be denied that in such a situation it was the