Section 167(5) Cr.P.C. is not applicable in cases where the investigation has been completed and the charge sheet has been filed.

JUDGMENT :

SHAMPA DUTT (PAUL), J.

1. The present revision has been preferred against an order dated 20.11.2019 passed by the Learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Chanchal, Malda, rejecting the prayer of the petitioner under Section 167(5) or the Code of Criminal Procedure and as also quashing of the proceeding being G.R. Case No. 2082 of 2014 arising out of Ratua Police Station Case No. 691 of 2014 dated 31.12.2014 under Sections 363/366A/365 of the Indian Penal Code, pending before the Court of Learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Malda.

2. The petitioner’s case is that on 31.12.2014, one Bharat Mondal, son of Dhiren Mondal, residing at Village - Piyari Sarkartola, Police Station - Ratua, District - Malda, lodged one written complaint before the Officer-in-Charge, Ratua Police Station to the effect that on 30.12.2014 at about 8.00 A.M., his minor sister namely Kunti Mondal went for private tuition and on the way the accused person namely Sukumar Mondal restrained and kidnapped her.

3. On the basis of the said complaint the present case being Ratua Police Station Case No. 691/2014 dated 31.12.2014 under Sections 363/366A/365 of the Indian Penal Code was started against the petitioner.

4. Order dated 06.01.2015 reflects that the victim girl was recovered, her statement was recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. and thereafter she was handed over to her legal guardian.

5. Order dated 16.04.2015 reflects that the Investigating Officer of the present case prayed before the Learned Trial Court for adding Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code.

6. Order dated 03.01.2019 reflects that the record was misplaced, and was put up on 03.01.2019 (same day).

7. On 30.01.2019, the petitioner filed a petition under Section 167(5)(ii) before the Learned Magistrate and prayed for discharge in the present case.

8. On 20.11.2019, the Learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Chanchal, Malda rejected the prayer of the petitioner and allowed the prayer of Investigating Officer for adding Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code.

9. Mr. Amal Krishna Samanta, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the Learned Magistrate did not realise the conduct of the G.R.O. which was not at all acceptable and as such the order dated 20.11.2019 is liable to be set aside.

10. That the Learned Magistrate neither followed the statute nor went through the provision of law and as such the order dated 20.11.2019 is liable to be set aside.

11. That the Case Diary was lying in the custody of Investigating Officer and the said Officer neither developed the investigation nor prayed before the Learned Court for extension of the period of investigation and hence the investigation should be stopped and the order dated 20.11.2019 is liable to be set aside and the proceeding is also liable to be quashed.

12. Mr. Samanta has relied upon the judgment:

In B. Premanand and Others vs. Mohan Koikal and Others in Civil Appeal No. 2684 of 2007, on 16 March, 2011, wherein a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court observed:

“In M/s. Hiralal Ratanlal vs. STO, AIR 1973 SC 1034, this Court observed:

“In construing a statutory provision the first and foremost rule of construction is the literaly construction. All that the Court has to see at the very outset is what does the provision say. If the provision is unambiguous and if from the provision the legislative intent is clear, the Court need not call into aid the other rules of construction of statutes. The other rules of construction are called into aid only when the legislative intent is not clear.”

(Emphasis supplied)

It may be mentioned in this connection that the first and foremost principle of interpretation of a statute in every system of interpretation is the literal rule of interpretation. The other rules of interpretation e.g. the mischief rule, purposive interpretation etc. can only be resorted to when the plain words of a statute are ambiguous or lead to no intelligible results or if read literally would nullify the very object o