IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA (CIRCUIT BENCH AT PORT BLAIR)
Shampa Dutt (Paul), J.
Vinod Ram – Petitioner
Versus
The Union Territory, Administration of Andaman and Nicobar Islands – Respondent
CRR No. 17 of 2023
Decided On : 15-12-2023
JUDGMENT :
Shampa Dutt (Paul), J.
1. The present revision has been preferred against an order dated 28.08.2023 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate at Port Blair in connection with G. R. Case No. 253 of 2021 corresponding to Aberdeen Police Station case No. 72 of 2021 under Sections 332/353/325/326/379/506 of the Indian Penal Code disposed of by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate at Port Blair by rejecting the petitioner's prayer for further investigation for the second time.
2. The petitioner/alleged victim's case is that on his prayer under Section 156 (3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, Aberdeen P.S. Case no. 72 of 2021 under Sections 332/353/325/326/379/506 of the Indian Penal Code was started against the opposite party no. 2.
3. On the date of incident, the opposite party no. 2 was posted as Sub-Divisional Magistrate, South Andaman at Port Blair in the Office of the Deputy Commissioner, South Andaman, where the petitioner was posted as a Multi Tasking Staff (M.T.S.) and he had the responsibility to open and close the office by taking/giving the keys from residence of the Deputy Commissioner. On 25.05.2021 (date of incident) over an issue regarding the said work, the petitioner was allegedly abused and brutally assaulted by the opposite party no. 2, as a result, the petitioner allegedly suffered severe injuries, including a fracture in the left hand. The petitioner/alleged victim has stated that the Investigating Officer did not collect all the medical and other relevant papers from him and without conducting a free and fair investigation submitted a final report in the case leading to the discharge of the accused.
4. It is stated that as the petitioner was not keeping well, his wife filed the complaint on the next day with the police but as no action was taken, the petitioner filed a petition under Section 156 (3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure which was registered and the investigation ended in a final report.
5. On a 'Narazi' petition being filed by the petitioner, a further investigation was directed by the Magistrate. The further investigation also ended in a supplementary final report for lack of evidence.
6. A second 'Narazi' petition was filed by the petitioner as per leave granted by the High Court.
7. It is the further case of the petitioner that his wife was forced to write a letter withdrawing the case by the authorities concerned.
8. The second 'Narazi' petition has been rejected by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate vide the Order dated 28.08.2023 under revision.
9. Hence, the revision on the ground that the investigation in this case has not been free and fair, considering the influential position of the accused, inspite of there being sufficient materials against him making out a prima facie case for the offence alleged.
10. On hearing the learned Counsel for the petitioner, the Opposite Party No. 2 and the learned Counsel for the State, it appears from the materials on record that :
(ii) Admittedly no complaint was lodged on the date of the alleged incident (25.05.2021).
(iii) Initial written complaint was filed by the petitioner's wife on 26.05.2021 before the police authorities (on the next date of incident).
(iv) Page 48 of the supplementary affidavit is the medical paper when the petitioner was first examined on 26.05.2021, (on the next day after the date of incident).
(v) The statement of the doctor who first examined the petitioner is very specific and she (Dr. Priya Krishnan) reiterated her statement by stating...
“I fully corroborate my previous statement given before previous I.O. of this case. As you said now that the victim Vinod Ram is now alleging that he told to me that he was beaten by his boss. But in this regard, I once again tell you that when the victim brought to this hospital he was not told initially regarding beating by his boss instead he and those staff brought him here told me that he fell on
Hardeep Singh v. State of Punjab
Amrutbhai Shambubhai Patel v. Sumanbhai Kantibai Patel
Athul Rao v. State of Karnataka
Bhagwant Singh v. Commr. of Police
Bikash Ranjan Rout v. State through the Secretary (Home), Government of NCT of Delhi
Commissioner of Police, Delhi v. Registrar, Delhi High Court, New Delhi
Common Cause v. Union of India
Divine Retreat Centre v. State of Kerala
E. Sivakumar v. Union of India
Japani Sahoo v. Chandra Sekhar Mohanty
K. Chandrasekhar v. State of Kerala
Narender G. Goel v. State of Maharashtra
Narmada Bai v. State of Gujarat
Ram Jethmalani v. Union of India
Randhir Singh Rana v. State (Delhi Administration)
Reeta Nag v. State of West Bengal
State of West Bengal v. Committee for Protection of Democratic Rights, West Bengal
A Magistrate cannot order further investigation after charges are framed; this power exists only at the pre-cognizance stage to ensure a fair investigation.
The court emphasized the necessity of fair investigation in criminal proceedings and clarified the powers of the Magistrate to order further investigation under specific circumstances.
The court emphasized that further investigation must be justified by new evidence or deficiencies in the prior investigation, and the discretion to order it lies with the Magistrate based on case fac....
Further investigation – Whether further investigation should or should not be ordered is within discretion of Magistrate who will exercise such discretion on facts of each case and in accordance with....
The Magistrate has the power to order further investigation even after cognizance is taken and accused appears, if the facts of the case demand so, in the interest of justice and to avoid miscarriage....
The accused has no right to seek further investigation after a charge sheet is filed, and discrepancies in evidence are to be resolved at trial.
The Magistrate cannot treat a case as a complaint after taking cognizance based on a charge-sheet; further investigation rights lie with the police.
The court affirmed that thorough investigations were conducted, finding no deficiencies or evidence of foul play, thus denying the request for re-investigation.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.