Back
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
TIRTHANKAR GHOSH, J.
Soumendu Adhikari - Appellant
Versus
Abu Sohel & Anr. – Opp. Parties
C.R.R. No. 551 of 2022
Decided On : 15-03-2023
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. complaint origins and initial legal remedies. (Para 1 , 2 , 3) |
| 2. details of the allegations made against the accused. (Para 4 , 5) |
| 3. argument regarding procedural compliance in filing complaints. (Para 6 , 7 , 8) |
| 4. complaint handling and subsequent court actions. (Para 9 , 10 , 11) |
| 5. court observations on investigation protocols. (Para 12 , 13) |
| 6. court's view on the necessity of pre-investigation. (Para 14 , 15 , 16) |
| 7. discussion of political implications and motivations behind complaint. (Para 17 , 18) |
| 8. evaluation and implications of assessing the evidence and allegations. (Para 19 , 20 , 21 , 22 , 23 , 24 , 25 , 26 , 27) |
| 9. final court decision quashing f.i.r. and directing further inquiry. (Para 28 , 29) |
| 10. order for the district magistrate to collect evidence for further action. (Para 30 , 31) |
| 11. administrative directives to proceed with records. (Para 32 , 33 , 34 , 35) |
JUDGMENT :
Tirthankar Ghosh, J.
The present revisional application has been preferred challenging the order dated 17.02.2022 passed by the learned A.C.J.M., Contai in M.P. Case No.60 of 2022 wherein the learned Magistrate was pleased to allow the prayer of the opposite party no.1 under Section 156 (3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
2. The present case commenced on a letter of complaint addressed by the opposite party no.1 namely, Abu Sohel (hereinafter referred to as “the complainant”) to the Inspector-in-Charge, Contai Police Station. The contents of the said letter dated 01.02.2022 which was received on the same date by Contai Police Station are set out as follows:-
This is to inform you after having information’s collected from the reliable source and after having perused the relevant information’s in connection with the above mentioned subject it is found that while executing the job as mentioned herein above the said Mr. Soumendu Adhikari while he was the president of Contai P. K. College did not bother to take care any prescribed law and had been ableto misappropriate the funds by the way as follows:-
a) No procedural process of tender was floated in respect of any of the job executed as mentioned hereinabove and the said act is against the prescribed rules.
b) No Sanction plan is there in respect of any of the buildings.
c) No legal process was followed to execute the entire jobs mentioned herein above.
It is respectfully submitted that by utilizing the name and influence of Sri Suvendu Adhikari and being the younger brother of the said person he had been able to execute the entire job according to his whims and nobody could raise any kind of objection as there was huge life threat. It is very much apparent that he had chosen those contractors only who were blue eyed boys of him and will act according to his sweet will and for such it attracts criminal conspiracy as well as principles of Prevention of corruption Act.
Under such circumstances you are hereby requested to enquire into the complaint hereby lodged before you and further requested to take appropriate legal steps under The INDIAN PENAL CODE , 1860, THE PREVENTION OF CORRUPTION ACT, 1988, THE PREVENTION OF MONEY-LAUNDERING ACT, 2022 forthwith.”
3. The complainant thereafter being aggrieved by the inaction/non-action of the police authorities for not-registering F.I.R. preferred a Public Interest Litigation being, W.P.A.(P) 57 of 2022 which was affirmed on or about 7th February, 2022 and was considered by a Court presided over by the Hon’ble Chief Justice on 15.02.2022. The Division Bench refused to consider the said application as a Public Interest Litigation holding that the grievance to be of personal nature. By the said order dated 15.02.2022 the Hon’ble Division Bench was pleased to rely upon the judgment of the
The magistrate must ensure a complaint discloses a cognizable offence before directing police investigation under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C., and a detailed affidavit is required to support such applicat....
The Magistrate has discretion under Section 156(3) of the CrPC to determine whether to direct an investigation, particularly in civil disputes masquerading as criminal matters.
Direction for Police Investigation – Option to direct registration of case and its investigation by police should be exercised where some “investigation” is required, which is of a nature that is not....
The main legal point established in the judgment is the necessity for judicial reasoning and compliance with Sections 154(1) and 154(3) of the CrPC before resorting to Section 156(3) of the CrPC, as ....
The court affirmed that a Magistrate can issue an order under Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C. after a revision, even if a prior complaint was dismissed, emphasizing the need for proper procedural adherence....
As per Section 154 of Cr.P.C. object of registration of FIR is that every information relating to cognizance of offence whether or given orally or otherwise officer incharge of police station has to ....
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
