Back
2010 Supreme(Cal) 903
HIGH COURT OF CALCUTTA
MRINAL KANTI SINHA, J.
Anima Ghosh - Appellant
Versus
State of West Bengal - Respondent
CRR No. 1817 of 2009
Decided on : Aug 02, 2010
Sandipan Ganguly, Bhaskar Seth, Sk. Kasem Ali Ahmed
The court can direct further investigation even after taking cognizance of an offence on the strength of a police report if the investigation conducted by the police was perfunctory and designedly defective.
Headnote:
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CODE - SECTION 173(8) - Further investigation - Ordered by the court - Investigation conducted by the police was perfunctory and designedly defective - Failure of justice - Further investigation is necessary.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, the defacto complainant in a G.R. case, filed a petition for further investigation into her case alleging that the investigation conducted by the police was perfunctory and defective. The learned Chief Judicial Magistrate rejected the petition. The petitioner filed a revisional application challenging the order of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the investigation conducted by the police was not done in a proper and correct manner rather that was conducted in a perfunctory manner for which failure of justice has been caused and for which further investigation is necessary.
Issues: Whether the investigation conducted by the police was perfunctory and defective.
Ratio Decidendi: The court relied on the provisions of Section 173(8) of the Criminal Procedure Code and the decisions of the Supreme Court in Ram Lal Narang Vs. State (Delhi Admn.), AIR 1979 SC 1791 and Hasanbhai Valibhai Qureshi Vs. State of Gujarat reported in AIR 2004 SC 2078 to hold that even after the Court took cognizance of any offence on the strength of the police report first submitted, it is open to the police to conduct further investigation.
Final Decision: The court allowed the revisional application and set aside the impugned order of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate. The court directed the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate to dispose of the petitioner's prayer for further investigation in the light of the observations made in the judgment.
Mrinal Kanti Sinha, J.
1. THIS revisional application has been directed against the order passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dakshin Dinajpur, Balurghat on 4.4.2009 in G.R. case No. 160/2009, whereby the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate concerned rejected the petition of the defacto-complainant, the present petitioner, praying for necessary order after setting aside the impugned order.
2. IT is the case of the petitioner as defacto-complainant of the said G.R. Case No. 160/2009 arising out of Balurghat police station case No. 72 dated 27.02.2009 that she was married with the opposite party No.2 on 13.05.2007 according to Hindu Rites and Customs and at the time of her marriage her brothers gave cash, gold ornaments and various other items to the opposite party Nos. 2 and 3, who are teacher and retired headmaster respectively. While the petitioner was living in her matrimonial home after marriage, then the opposite party No.2 used to assault her physically and tortured her mentally to which the opposite party No.3 did not protest. Due to the said assault and torture the petitioner became unconscious on 23.02.2009 at about 9.30 P.M. and thereafter she admitted herself into the hospital while her stridhan articles were retained at her matrimonial home. She lodged a complaint at Balurghat Police Station. In pursuance of a First Information Report of the petitioner investigation was made by police authorities, but in the course of investigation police authorities did not take any step for recovery of stridhan articles of the petitioner and the police authorities did not examine various vital witnesses including Doctor, who examined the petitioner, nor cited them as witness, and did not take any step for seizure of medical documents like admission slip, discharge slip, injury report etc. relating to treatment of the petitioner from Balurghat Hospital where the petitioner remained admitted. After completion of a mala fide and misconceived investigation the Investigating Officer of the Balurghat Police Station submitted a report in final form vide Charge sheet No. 65 dated 13.03.2009 under Section 498A/34 only of Indian Penal Code against the opposite party Nos. 2 and 3. The Investigating Officer of Balurghat Police Station did not inform the petitioner about the result of that investigation. As no proper investigation has been conducted by the police authorities the petitioner filed an application in the Court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dakshin Dinajpur, Balurghat on 25.03.2009 praying for reinvestigation into the matter, but that petition was rejected by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dakshin Dinajpur, Balurghat on 04.04.2009 after hearing the parties. Hence this revisional application.
The opposite party No.1 State of West Bengal is contesting the case through learned P.P. Though initially Mr. P. S. Bose, learned Advocate appeared for opposite party Nos. 2 and 3 vide order serial No.282 dated 17.06.2009, yet subsequently none appeared to contest this case on behalf of opposite party Nos. 2 and 3.
3. THE point to be considered in this matter is whether the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate was legal correct, proper and justified in passing the impugned order rejecting the said petition of the petitioner for reinvestigation.
4. MR. Sandipan Ganguly, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner has submitted that the impugned order passed by the learned Magistrate in the said case is arbitrary and illegal causing grave prejudice and injustice to the petitioner, and the investigation conducted by the Investigating Officer of Dakshin Dinajpur into the said case of the petitioner was perfunctory, erroneous with a lackadaisical attitude. Charge-sheet has been submitted in the case hurriedly within about 15/16 days without seizure of medical papers and examination of vital witnesses, and recovery of stridhan articles of the petitioner, and so such order of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate is req
