IMPORTANT POINT
The judgment reinforces the obligation of police to register FIRs for cognizable offenses and the rights of victims' families to seek justice.

JUDGMENT :

Ajay Kumar Gupta, J.

1. The allegation of the petitioner is very serious. Her accusation is to the effect that her son had been murdered by grave torture by police personnel at police custody. The petitioner, being the mother of the victim, visited several occasions to the Noapara police station but refused to accept a written complaint and ultimately on 23rd May, 2016 a written complaint was received by the Noapara Police Station but same was not drawn as formal First Information Report though the allegation is cognizable and serious one. The police authority did not treat the said written complaint as an FIR.

2. The petitioner made a written complaint to the Commissioner of Police, Barrackpore Police Commissionerate on 24th May, 2016 with a prayer to take appropriate action in the matter but despite of the said fact, no action has been taken even on such written complaint by the higher officials.

3. Having no other alternative, the mother of the victim approached the Chairman, Human Rights Commission, West Bengal and a formal complaint was made to the Human Rights Commission vide letter dated 17.06.2016 but even then, no action or investigation has been initiated with regard to the allegation of murder of her son, namely, Saumik Das.

4. She also made a written representation dated 04.06.2016 to the local Member of the Legislative Assembly informing the entire facts but even making such representation/written complaint, no result comes out to unearth the truth.

5. Consequently, the petitioner filed an application under Section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 before the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Barrackpore with a prayer for direction to treat her complaint as an FIR and cause investigation into the matter by police authorities to unearth the truth but the learned Court below was also pleased to reject the application of the petitioner under Section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 mechanically and without considering the nature of allegations and disposed of the same on 13th June, 2016 though the allegation of the petitioner was serious and offence was cognizable, which ought to have required to register the same as an FIR for causing investigation to unearth the truth with regard to allegation of murder of Saumik Das, aged about 21 years (male), S/O Dinu Das of Ichhapur Bapuji Colony, P.S. Noapara, North 24 Parganas, Kolkata – 700 120 under the custody of police in Noapara Police Station.

6. Feeling aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the said rejection order passed by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Barrackpore, North 24 Parganas in M.P. Case No. 896/2016 under Section 156(3) of the Cr.PC, the petitioner filed this instant application under Article 227 read with Sections 401 and 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 praying for setting aside the said impugned order dated 13th June, 2016 on the grounds hereunder to treat her complaint as an FIR and cause investigation into the matter by police authorities to unearth the truth.

i. The learned Magistrate failed to appreciate the allegation of the petitioner for investigation of the cause of death of the son of the petitioner in police custody of Noapara Police Station on 18th May, 2016.

ii. The learned Magistrate also failed to appreciate the fact that the police had arrested the victim but no arrest memo had been issued upon the family members of the victim or any other persons.

iii. The learned Magistrate did not consider the factum of the case and fail to appreciate the settled proposition of law that in any allegation regarding cognizable offence, a written complaint must be treated as an FIR and cause investigation into the matter as expeditiously as possible even though a separate departmental proceeding had been initiated by the higher authority against the incumbents who were responsible for the said death of Saumik Das.

iv. The learned Magistrate also failed to appreciate the rights of the petitio