The main legal point established in the judgment is the importance of fair and proper investigation, the right of any person to seek justice, and the duty of the State to punish offenders.

JUDGMENT :

1. By the instant application the petitioner has challenged the order dated 30th November, 2016 passed by the learned Judge, Special Court, 3rd Court, Barasat in Special Case No.20 of 2014 corresponding to G.R No.3249 of 2012 arising out of Nimta P.S. Case No.230 of 2012 dated 25th July, 2012 under sections 406/408/409 IPC whereby the petitioner's application under section 173(8) of the Code of Criminal Procedure seeking further investigation in the aforesaid case was rejected after hearing the learned counsel for the parties.

2. The facts in brief leading to the present application may be summarized as follows:

On 25th July, 2017 one Chandra Sekhar Naskar, Administrator of Nimta High School lodged a written complaint at Nimta P.S. alleging offences under sections 406/408/409 IPC against the opposite party nos.2 to 6 herein. According to the FIR, the accused persons being members of the Building Committee, Secretary of the Managing Committee and Assistant Head Master of the said School, misappropriated school funds amounting to Rs.10,35,416/- allotted for constructing rooms and other works of development in the school. On the basis of the aforesaid complaint the proceeding was initiated. Investigation culminated in the submission of the charge-sheet under sections 406/408/409 of the IPC against the three FIR named accused persons and the Head Master of Nimta High School. The Investigating Officer prayed for discharge of one of the FIR named accused namely, Narayan Chandra Kamila, the opposite party no. 6 herein on the ground that no evidence could be collected against him. The aforesaid accused was accordingly discharged from the case as per prayer of the investigating agency. The petitioner who is an assistant teacher in the said school, filed an application seeking further investigation under Section 173(8) CrPC before the learned Judge, Special Court Barasat where the said case was transferred for disposal. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, the Judge Special Court rejected the aforesaid application by the impugned order. Aggrieved, the petitioner has approached this Court.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner sought to impress that the investigation was partial, perfunctory and shoddy. To shield the real offenders, investigation was conducted in an unfair manner. It is canvassed that the minutes of the meetings of the Managing Committee during the relevant period, which were not seized during investigation, would establish that the discharged accused is also responsible for the financial scam. It is contended that the opposite party no. 6 has been discharged by the investigating agency on the ground that he had no authority to sign the cheques but the enquiry report reveals that the opposite party no. 6/discharged accused, who was then the Assistant Head Master of the said school, was the custodian of the school accounts. Referring to the enquiry report at page 87 and 88 of the application, it is pointed out that payments were released with the help of the discharged accused who used the cheques signed by the Head Master of the school. Learned counsel pointed out that the investigating agency deliberately overlooked the fact that the anticipatory bail prayer of the discharged accused was rejected by this Court on the ground that there was sufficient material against him. It is strenuously argued that the opposite party no. 6/discharged accused is directly involved in the offence of misappropriation of school funds and it is a fit case for further investigation. In support of his argument reliance has been placed on Vinay Tyagi versus Irshad Ali @Deepak and others reported in (2013) 5 SCC 762 and Pooja Pal versus Union of India and others reported in (2016) 1 SCC (Cri) 743. On the point of the petitioner's locus standi to seek further investigation, it has rightly been contended that anyone can set the criminal law in motion except where the statute enacting or creating an offence indicates to the co