IMPORTANT POINT
The main legal point established in the judgment is the right of the victim to fair investigation, the court's power to order further investigation under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C., and the principles of fair and just investigation as essential for a fair trial.

JUDGMENT :

SIDDHARTHA ROY CHOWDHURY, J.

1. The petition under consideration takes exception to the order no. 56 dated 1st August, 2022 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate, 4th Court, Siliguri in G.R. Case No. 2909 of 2015 arising out of Siliguri P.S. Case No. 758 of 2015 dated 20th August, 2015.

1.1 Briefly stated, on 20th August, 2015, Sri Palatak Ghosh informed the Inspector-in-charge of Siliguri Police Station in writing that his father Sudhhir Chandra Ghosh was the owner of the property in question. On 15th August, 2015 the informant went to the said property when some local people informed that way back in the year 2000 the property was sold to some persons of Siliguri. It was quite surprising an information, and after searching the office of the concerned authorities he came to know that one deed of sale was executed in the name of his mother Bimala Bala Ghosh in favour of Debdas Mukherjee and five other persons on 12th November, 2000. Though the registration was completed in the year 2003 and duly transcribed in the Book No. I Volume No. 35 being no. 1516 for the year, 2003. Smt. Bimala Bala Ghosh did not execute the document no. 1517 of 2003. The document was forged and fabricated by the seven accused persons in collusion and connivance with each other.

2. As the information disclosed offence, cognizable in nature, Siliguri P.S. Case No. 758 of 2015 was registered on 20th August, 2015 under Section 420/465/467/468/474/120B of the I.P.C. Police took up investigation which culminated into submission of charge sheet on 24th June, 2016 against the five accused persons. In course of investigation the Investigating Officer seized the Title Deed in question and also obtained the specimen signature of the accused persons as well as informant and his family members and forwarded the same for comparison with the signatures on the Title Deed in question to the Director D.I.B. and C.I.D. West Bengal, Bhabani Bhaban. However, Examiner of questioned document could not come to a definite opinion, because of wide time gap of fifteen years. The Investigating Officer, however, filed charge sheet. The de-facto complainant moved an application before a Co-ordinate Bench seeking further investigation to the matter which was registered as CRR 140 of 2019 and the Coordinate Bench after considering the submission of learned Counsel representing the parties refused to interfere holding inter alia such interference would amount to usurpation of power of the Magistrate. It was held further that the petitioner should have approached the Court below if the petitioners were aggrieved by order of the Court below passed in an application filed by the Investigating Officer, the petitioners have not done so. The petitioners have also not challenged the report of the expert by taking exception thereto.

3. The informant thereafter filed an application under Section 173(8) of the Code of Criminal Procedure before the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Siliguri with a prayer for direction upon the I.O. for holding further investigation. Learned Trial Court considering the application under Section 173(8) of the Cr.P.C. was pleased to pass the order impugned, holding inter alia that de-facto complainant lacks the locus standi to pray for further investigation under Section 173(8) of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

4. Assailing the impugned order Mr. Sourav Chatterjee, learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the order impugned was passed by learned Judicial Magistrate, 4th Court, Siliguri relying upon the judgments pronounced in the case of Reeta Nag vs. State of West Bengal, (2009) 9 SCC 129 and Amrut Bhai Shambhubhai Patel vs. Suman Bhai Kanti Bhai Patel, (2017) 4 SCC 177 but subsequently overruled by Hon’ble Supreme Court. It is further contended that the petitioner being the de-facto complainant and victim has the right to have his say at every stage of proceeding and such right has been recognized by way of amendment with effect from 31st