Back
SHAMPA DUTT (PAUL)
Monowara Sardar – Appellant
Versus
State of West Bengal – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
Shampa Dutt (Paul), J.
1. The present revisional application has been preferred praying for quashing of the impugned order dated 23.03.2021 passed by the Court of the Learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate at Alipore, South 24 Parganas in connection with Canning Police Station Case No.701/2016 dated 25/10/2016 under Sections 363/365/366/372/34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 corresponding to Case No.BGR-5771 of 2016, pending before the Court of the Learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate at Alipore, South 24 Parganas thereby rejecting the prayer for further investigation.
2. Vide the order under revision the learned Magistrate held as follows:-
If the provision/offence of PIT Act has been attracted, that can be taken care of by the trial court. This case is fit for trial. I do not find any reason to interfere in our investigation.
Considering entire aspect, prayer for further investigation is rejected………”
3. Written notes of argument have been filed by both the parties.
4. Learned counsel for the state by placing the Case Dia
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....
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 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 court affirmed that thorough investigations were conducted, finding no deficiencies or evidence of foul play, thus denying the request for re-investigation.
The court affirmed that magistrates cannot order further investigations post-cognizance without evidence of malafide, upholding the legitimacy of the charge sheet filed under Section 498A.
The Magistrate cannot treat a case as a complaint after taking cognizance based on a charge-sheet; further investigation rights lie with the police.
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
