Back
2020 Supreme(Cal) 258
IN THE HIGH COURT OF CALCUTTA
Madhumati Mitra, J.
Ratan Lal Saxena And Others - Appellants
Versus
State Of West Bengal And Another - Respondents
Criminal Revision No. 3298 of 2012
Decided On : 11-02-2020
Rabi Sankar Chattopadhyay, Advocate, Kakali Chatterjee, Advocate, Debasish Chatterjee, Advocate, Sudip Ghosh, Advocate, Debjani Sahu, Advocate, Jayanta Narayan Chatterjee, Advocate, Sanjib Mitra, Advocate, Sarbani Chakraborty, Advocate
The main legal point established in the judgment is the authority of the Magistrate to direct further investigation under Section 173(8) of the Code of Criminal Procedure and the right of the complainant to question the fairness of the investigation and demand further investigation.
Headnote:
Further Investigation - Criminal Procedure - Indian Penal Code - Sections 419/420/406/467/468/471/120B - The court discussed the authority of the Magistrate to direct further investigation under Section 173(8) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the right of the complainant to file a protest petition, and the change of investigating agency. The court modified the impugned order to conduct further investigation by the same investigating agency under the supervision of the superintendent of police concerned within six months.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioners challenged the order for further investigation passed by the Learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate in connection with a case under Sections 419/420/406/467/468/471/120B of the Indian Penal Code. The case involved allegations of conspiracy, forgery, and transfer of property.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the Magistrate had the authority to direct further investigation under Section 173(8) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. It also noted the right of the complainant to file a protest petition and the requirement for the Magistrate to scrutinize the final report submitted by the investigating officer. The court modified the impugned order to conduct further investigation by the same investigating agency under the supervision of the superintendent of police concerned within six months.
Issues: The issues involved the authority of the Magistrate to direct further investigation, the right of the complainant to file a protest petition, and the change of investigating agency.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the Magistrate had the authority to direct further investigation under Section 173(8) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. It emphasized the right of the complainant to question the fairness of the investigation and demand further investigation. The court also ruled that the change of investigating agency by the Magistrate to hold further investigation was not sustainable in law.
Final Decision: The impugned order was modified to conduct further investigation by the same investigating agency under the supervision of the superintendent of police concerned within six months. The criminal revisional application was disposed of.
JUDGMENT
Madhumati Mitra, J. - Petitioners have challenged the order impugned dated 10.07.2012 passed by the Learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Serampore in connection with Uttarpara Police Station Case No.16 of 2006 dated 17.02.2006, corresponding to G.R. Case No. 60/06 under Sections 419/420/406/467/468/471/120B of the Indian Penal Code.
2. By the impugned order dated 10.07.2012 Learned Magistrate directed further investigation of the above mentioned case through the D.I.G., C.I.D., Bhawani Bhawan.
3. Facts which are essential to dispose of the Revisional Application may be narrated as under:-
The land relating to the premises No.105/1, R.S. Verma Road originally belonged to one Krishna Lal Verma and Kanaklata Saxena who happened to be the father and elder sister-in-law of the present petitioners and opposite party no.2. After the death of said Krishna Lal Verma, the petitioners, opposite party no.2 and other legal heirs inherited his share in respect of the said property and became co-sharers. Apartments and one nursing home were constructed on the said land.
4. Present opposite party no.2 being the elder brother of the petitioners and son of said Krishna Lal Verma filed a petition of complaint under Section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure before the Learned Magistrate and on the basis of said petition of complaint, Uttarpara Police Station Case No.16 of 2006, dated 17.02.2006, under Sections 419/420/406/468/471/120B of the Indian Penal Code was initiated against the present petitioners.
5. At page 5 of the present application, it has been stated that in the said petition of complaint it was alleged that petitioner no.1 had hatched up a conspiracy with the other petitioners and got a Power of Attorney executed by the opposite party no.2 in favour of petitioner no.1. On the strength of said Power of Attorney, the portion of the land belonging to the opposite party no.1 appertaining to premises no.105/1, R.S. Verma Road was transferred by a registered deed of lease in favour of Smt. Preeti Saxena, the wife of the petitioner no.1 who happened to be the Director of the Nursing Home established on the said premises under the name and style Arogya Niketan (P) Limited.
6. Initially, the Magistrate had refused to direct the officer-in-charge of the Police Station to treat the same as an First Information Report. Then the opposite party no.2 had approached before the High Court by preferring a Revisional Application being no.3256 of 2005 and the High Court set aside that order of refusal to treat the petition of complaint as an F.I.R. The Magistrate was directed to hear the matter afresh. Thereafter, the Learned Magistrate on 08.02.2006 directed for registration of the said petition of complaint as F.I.R. and for investigation into the allegations contained in the said petition of complaint.
7. On 08.07.2006 the investigating agency submitted the report in final form. In the said report it was stated that the alleged power of attorney could not be recovered and also mentioned that the petitioner no.1 lodged a general diary stating that the said power of attorney had been lost.
8. Opposite party no.2 filed an application before the Learned Magistrate praying for further investigation of the matter. The Learned Magistrate on 19.10.2006 directed further investigation of the case. Again on 23.02.2007 the investigating agency submitted report in final form mentioning that the dispute between the parties was in civil nature.
9. Another protest petition was filed by opposite party praying for further investigation. On 08.06.2007 the Learned Magistrate directed for further investigation. On 05.10.2007 the investigating agency again submitted report in final form. Opposite party no.2 once again filed protest petition on 29.11.2008. The investigating officer this time also submitted report in final form. Again the opposite party no.2 submitted protest petition against the final report submitted by the investigating agency.
