Point of Law: Criminal Law - Jurisdiction - Inherent powers of High Court - where jurisdiction is exercised on a complaint petition filed in terms of Section 156(3) or Section 200 of Code of Criminal Procedure, Magistrate is required to apply his mind. Magistrate cannot refer an application under Section 156(3) against a public servant without valid sanction order and application of mind by Magistrate should be reflected in order. Mere statement that he has gone through complaint, documents and heard the complainant as such as reflected in the order will not be sufficient. After going through complaint, documents and hearing the complainant, what weighed with Magistrate to order investigation under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C., should be reflected in order, though a detail expression of his views is neither required or warranted.

JUDGMENT :

Shivakant Prasad, J.

1. This is an application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 whereby and whereunder the petitioner, an officer of the Indian Administrative Service presently posted as the Secretary Department of Self Help Group and Self Employment, Government of West Bengal has sought to quash the first information report in connection with Alipore Police Station Case No.54 of 2019 dated 14.04.2019 under Sections 120B/167/182/193/417/465/466/468/469/471/501/509 and 34 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 read with Section 21 and 26 of the Indian Telegraph Act and the impugned order dated 28th March, 2019 of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Alipore directing the Officer-in-charge, Alipore P.S. to register a specific police case for investigation after treating the same application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. as an FIR against the petitioner arraigning her as an accused along with other accused persons. It is submitted that the petitioner prior to present assignment held various responsible positions in the Government of West Bengal as the District Magistrate of the Districts of Purba Medinipur and Malda and thereafter the Secretary of Kolkata Municipal Development Authority. At the outset it is pointed out that the allegation made in the First Information Report does not disclose any offence committed by the petitioner far less the offences alleged by quoting Sections of various Acts. It is evident that there has been a manifest, malafide, absurd allegation and improbable allegation levelled by the opposite party no. 2 against the petitioner. It is admitted fact that the petitioner was married to opposite party no. 2 an IPS Officer presently posted as Assistant Inspector General (Special) Bhawani Bhawan, Kolkata-700027 who committed intolerable torture upon the petitioner compelling her to lodge the case being Serampore Police Station Case no. 44 of 2006 dated 22nd February, 2006 against him and others under Sections 498A/307/448/506/342 of the Indian Penal Code read with Sections 3 & 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act.

2. It is contended that the opposite party no. 2 is leading a bigamous relation with another lady who committed torture upon the petitioner and her only daughter aged 6 months compelling the petitioner to lodge another case being Ballygunge P.S. Case No. 86 of 2014 dated 09.01.2014 under Sections 498A/307/494/497/34 of the Indian Penal Code read with Section 23 of the Juvenile Justice (Care & Protection) Act and Sections 3 & 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act and charge sheet under Sections 498A/323 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code read with Sections 3 & 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act and charge sheet has been submitted on completion of investigation against the opposite party no. 2 and others in both the cases which cases are pending for trial.

3. It is specifically contended that in the course of investigation, the Investigating Officer had received certain documents from the petitioner as mentioned in the Annexure P2 of the application in connection with Ballygunge P.S. Case No. 86 of 2014 but for the reasons best known to the Investigating Officer, many of the vital documents seized under seizure list have not been made part of the charge sheet to omit graver penal sections and for that the petitioner challenged the same in a criminal revisional case being CRR No. 179 of 2016 before the Hon’ble High Court and on perusal of those documents, the Hon’ble Court by order dated 5th October, 2016 gave liberty to the petitioner to participate in the proceedings of Ballygunge P.S. Case No. 86 of 2016 and to lead additional evidence under Section 311 of the Code of Criminal Procedure which fact is revealed from the said order annexed vide letter P3. Accordingly, the petitioner applied under Section 311 of the Code before the trial Court to bring on record the said documents as additional documents to which no objection was raised either by the Investigating Agency or by the opposite party no. 2.