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 magistrate's power to extend the investigation period without valid special reasons.

JUDGMENT :

BIBHAS RANJAN DE, J.

1. The instant revision application has been preferred assailing the order dated 03.03.2016 passed by Ld. Additional Sessions Judge, South 24 Parganas, corresponding to Criminal Motion no. 24 of 2015 arising out of an order dated17.04.2015 passed by Ld. Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate (for short A.C.J.M.) Diamond Harbour in connection with Usthi Police Station Case No. 286 of 2010 dated 30.10.2010 under Sections 376/420/493 of the Indian Penal Code (for short IPC).

Background:

2. After demise of the husband of the petitioner in the year 2003, the opposite party no. 2, being a friend of the deceased husband of the petitioner, used to frequently visit the house of the petitioner. From time to time the opposite party no. 2 used to help the petitioner financially. Gradually, the opposite party no. 2 gained the trust of the petitioner and picked up a relation with her. In the year 2004, the petitioner obtained a substantial amount from the office of her deceased husband. During that period, the opposite party no. 2 approached the petitioner for some money for the purpose of setting up cable business. Accordingly, the petitioner, out of good faith, granted the opposite party no. 2 a loan of Rs. 1,98,000/-. Thereafter, the opposite party no. 2, being pressurized by the petitioner, prepared some papers of marriage wherein he obtained some signatures of the petitioner for the purpose of registration of their marriage. Afterwards, they started cohabiting. But, when the petitioner pressurized the opposite party no. 2 to marry socially, the petitioner disclosed that it was a fake marriage registration having no legal force. The petitioner, feeling deceived, cheated, and raped lodged complaint before the Superintendent of Police (for short S.P.), South 24 Parganas who in tern, issued a direction by virtue of which an FIR with Usthi Police Station was registered on 30.10.2010 as Usthi Police Station Case No. 286 of 2010 under Sections 493/376/420 of the IPC.

3. Thereafter, on 04.12.2010 the petitioner, being unaware of the direction of the S.P. South 24 Parganas, again lodged a complaint against the petitioner in the court of Ld. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Alipore on the self same incident under Section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short Cr.P.C.) with a prayer for investigation. Accordingly, Bishnupur Police Station Case No. 597 of 2010 dated 04.12.2010 under Sections 376/420/493 of IPC was started which was subsequently quashed by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Hon’ble Court on the ground that a person cannot be vexed twice for the same offence and the complaint under Section 156(3) was filed on the self same offences and cause of action with that of the FIR lodged with Usthi Police Station dated 30.10.2010, which is not permissible in the eye of law and is liable to be quashed.

4. Thereafter, according to the Provision of Section 167 (5) (2) of Cr.P.C. the Investigating Officer in connection with Usthi Police Station Case No. 286 of 2010 made a prayer before the Ld. Magistrate for recording the statement of the petitioner and for conducting medical examination of both the petitioner and the opposite party no. 2. Pursuant to such prayer, Ld. Magistrate vide order dated 17.04.2015 although rejected the prayer for medical examination but was pleased to extend the period of investigation by two months.

5. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with such order the opposite party no. 2 preferred a revisional application before the Ld. Additional Sessions Judge, South 24 Parganas, corresponding to Criminal Motion no. 24 of 2015 wherein the Ld. Judge after hearing the matter was pleased to allow such revision thereby setting aside the order passed by Ld. A.C.J.M. and discharged the opposite party no. 2 from the case vide order dated 03.03.2016. Being dissatisfied with the impugned order passed by Ld. Additional Sessions Judge, the petitioner filed the instant application with a prayer for setting aside the