Back
SHAMPA DUTT PAUL
Sukumar Mondal – Appellant
Versus
State of West Bengal – Respondent
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 agains
Section 167(5) Cr.P.C. is not applicable in cases where the investigation has been completed and the charge sheet has been filed.
The magistrate must consider the progress of the investigation and the sufficiency of materials on record before discharging the accused under Section 167(5) of the Cr.P.C.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the mandatory obligation to conclude the investigation within the specified period under Section 167(5) of the Cr.P.C. and the limitations on the m....
The court emphasized the importance of fair and just investigation, clarified the power of further investigation under Section 173(8) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, and highlighted the non-compou....
The Magistrate has the power to order further investigation even after cognizance is taken and accused appears, if the facts of the case demand so, in the interest of justice and to avoid miscarriage....
The court emphasized the necessity of fair investigation in criminal proceedings and clarified the powers of the Magistrate to order further investigation under specific circumstances.
The power to investigate is exclusively reserved for the police officers, and the High Court cannot change the investigating officer in the midstream and appoint any agency of its own choice to inves....
The court emphasized that further investigation must be justified by new evidence or deficiencies in the prior investigation, and the discretion to order it lies with the Magistrate based on case fac....
The court affirmed that magistrates cannot order further investigations post-cognizance without evidence of malafide, upholding the legitimacy of the charge sheet filed under Section 498A.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
