Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2024 Supreme(Cal) 260

IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
AJAY KUMAR GUPTA, J.
Piyali Saha – Petitioner
Versus
The State of West Bengal and Others – Respondents
CRR No. 937 of 2021
Decided On : 18-04-2024

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Petitioners: Mayukh Mukherjee, Abhijit Singh, Suvasis Saha.
For the Respondents: Dyutiman Banerjee, Binay Kr. Panda, Subham Bhakat.

IMPORTANT POINT
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the inherent powers of the High Court under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. are not limited by the provisions of the Cr.P.C., and the Court should exercise caution and sparingly use its extraordinary powers to direct investigation by an independent agency to ensure credibility and confidence in the investigation.

Headnote:
Criminal Revisional Application - Monitoring of Investigation - Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Sections 483, 482 - Indian Penal Code - Sections 325/354/384/328/364/307/506/120B - The court discussed the inherent powers of the High Court under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. to make orders for fresh investigation or re-investigation to secure the ends of justice. It also highlighted the distinction between further investigation and reinvestigation, emphasizing that the High Court's inherent powers are not limited by the provisions of the Cr.P.C. The judgment also emphasized the need for exercising caution and sparingly using the extraordinary powers of the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution or Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. for directing investigation by an independent agency to ensure credibility and confidence in the investigation. The court cited relevant judgments to support its findings.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner filed a criminal revisional application seeking monitoring of the investigation and time-bound investigation in connection with a case under Sections 325/354/384/328/364/307/506/120B of the IPC. The petitioner alleged torture and illegal detention by the husband, in-laws, and doctors, leading to the loss of her job. The investigating officer submitted a charge sheet, but the petitioner sought further investigation and proper investigation of the case under the supervision of the Court.
Finding of the Court:
The Court found that the charge sheet had already been submitted against four accused persons, and the investigating officer had prayed for further investigation and to file a supplementary charge sheet against two other accused persons. The Court concluded that there was no merit in the petitioner's request for monitoring the investigation or time-bound investigation by the Court. The criminal revisional application was dismissed.
Issues: The main issue was whether the Court should monitor the investigation and order time-bound investigation in a case where a charge sheet had already been submitted, and the investigating officer had prayed for further investigation and a supplementary charge sheet.
Ratio Decidendi: The Court's decision was based on the finding that the charge sheet had already been submitted, and the investigating officer had sought further investigation and a supplementary charge sheet. The Court emphasized that the monitoring of an investigation comes to an end when the charge sheet has been submitted, and direction for time-bound investigation does not arise in such circumstances.
Final Decision: The criminal revisional application was dismissed without order as to costs, and connected applications, if any, were disposed of. The case diary, if any, was to be returned to the learned Advocate for the State, and a copy of the judgment and order was to be sent to the learned Court below for information. The interim order, if any, stood vacated, and the parties were to act on the server copies of the order uploaded from the website of the Court.

JUDGMENT :

AJAY KUMAR GUPTA, J.

1. The petitioner has filed this criminal revisional application under Section 483 read with Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 in connection with G.R. Case No. 741/2019 and corresponding to Amherst Street Police Station Case No. 233/2019 dated 8th August, 2019 under Sections 325/354/384/328/364/307/506/120B of the Indian Penal Code pending before the Learned Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, 2nd Court, Calcutta, praying for monitoring the investigation by this Hon’ble High Court and further sought for passing direction for time bound investigation and/or pass such orders as may deem fit and proper.

2. The factual matrix of the instant case is that the petitioner/complainant filed a petition of complaint under Section 156 (3) of the Cr.P.C. before the Court of learned Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, 2nd Court, Calcutta and same was registered as Misc. Case No. 34/2019 against Prasenjit Saha, Aparajita Saha, Paritosh Saha, Pitama Sha Sikdar, Dr. Bijoy Jacob, Dr. Soumya Chatterjee and employees of Antara Psychiatric Hospital with contentions and allegations that the petitioner is the legally married wife of opposite party no. 2 herein and their marriage was solemnized on 29th January, 2007 as per the Hindu Rites and Customs. The opposite party nos. 3 to 5 are in-laws of the petitioner. After marriage, the opposite party no. 2/husband and in-laws started torture for non-fulfilment of further demand of dowry. On such incident, the petitioner had lodged a written complaint before the Baguiati Police Station on 26.11.2018 and 09.03.2019 but police did not take any steps against them:

(a) Having no alternative, the petitioner had filed a matrimonial suit against the opposite party no. 2 before the learned District Judge’s Court at Barasat. Upon such filing of the matrimonial suit, the opposite party nos. 2 to 5 forcibly admitted the petitioner at Antara Hospital for her treatment as mental patient with connivance and conspiracy with each other. Upon such admission in Antara Hospital as mental patient, the friend and well-wisher of the petitioner filed a writ petition before the Hon’ble High Court being WPA 8150 (W) of 2019. After hearing, the Hon’ble High Court passed an order on 18.04.2019 and directed the Inspector-in-Charge of Baguiati Police Station to obtain psychological assessment report of the petitioner and also record the statement under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Authority of Antara Hospital discharged the petitioner from the said hospital after illegal detention of 52 days. As such, the petitioner lost her job as a school teacher. On such accusation, the learned Magistrate directed to lodge an FIR and to cause investigation into the matter resulting an FIR i.e. Amherst Street Police Station Case No. 233/2019 dated 08.08.2019 under Sections 325/354/384/328/364/307/506/120B of the IPC against the opposite party nos. 2 to 7. However, the investigating officer, with his lackadaisical attitude, did not investigate properly though it is imperative that in such a case, the investigation would be free and fair.

(b) It is further contended by the petitioner that when all the accused persons surrendered before the Court of learned Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate on 28.09.2020, the learned Advocate for the State produced the CD and shown a purported letter dated 03.03.2020 of the informant to the Officer-in-Charge of Amherst Street Police Station, purportedly showing amicable settlement between the parties took place. As such, the learned Magistrate, on the self-same date, granted bail to all the accused persons and released them vide order dated 28.09.2020 though the allegations against those accused persons are very serious in nature. The opposite party nos. 2 to 7, with ulterior motive and in connivance with the investigating officer, the investigation has been delayed and no progress has been made for conclusion of the investigation. Accor