Back
2014 Supreme(Tri) 261
IN THE HIGH COURT OF TRIPURA
S.C. Das, J.
Narendra Pratap Singh - Appellant
Versus
State of Tripura - Respondent
CRL. REV. P. 09 of 2009Decided On : 08-07-2014
For the Petitioner:Sekhar Dutta and D. Sengupta, Advocates.
For the Respondents:A. Ghosh, P.P., P.K. Biswas, Sr. Advocate and P. Majumder, Advocate.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the mandatory nature of Section 155 of CrPC, the requirement for police officers to obtain permission from the Magistrate before investigating a non-cognizable offence, and the consequences of non-compliance with the mandatory provisions of the law.
Headnote:
CrPC - Challenge to order taking cognizance of offence punishable under Section 323 of CrPC and rejecting prayer of discharge under Section 258 of CrPC - Section 397, Section 401, Section 482 - Section 155 of CrPC, Section 190(1)(a), Section 460 - The court discussed the mandatory nature of Section 155 of CrPC, the requirement for police officer to obtain permission from the Magistrate before investigating a non-cognizable offence, and the consequences of non-compliance. The court held that the investigation conducted by the complainant was beyond jurisdiction, and the cognizance taken on the basis of the police report was bad in law, quashing the criminal prosecution initiated against the accused petitioners.
Fact of the Case:
The de facto complainant alleged assault by his superior officers in the office premises. The accused petitioners challenged the order taking cognizance of the offence and rejecting the prayer of discharge, arguing that the investigating officer did not comply with the provisions of Section 155 of CrPC, and the allegations made in the police report were vague and suffered from inherent improbabilities.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the investigation conducted by the complainant was beyond jurisdiction, and the cognizance taken on the basis of the police report as a result of such investigation was bad in law. The court quashed the criminal prosecution initiated against the accused petitioners and allowed the revisional application, discharging the accused petitioners.
Issues: The issues involved the compliance with Section 155 of CrPC, the validity of the investigation conducted by the complainant, and the consequences of non-compliance with the mandatory provisions of the law.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the provisions of Section 155 of CrPC are mandatory in nature, and non-compliance with sub-section(2) of Section 155 makes the investigation beyond jurisdiction. The court also discussed the consequences of such non-compliance and the applicability of Section 460 of CrPC.
Final Decision: The court quashed the criminal prosecution initiated against the accused petitioners and allowed the revisional application, discharging the accused petitioners.
JUDGMENT
S.C. Das, J.1. This petition under Section 397 read with Section 401 and Section 482 of CrPC is filed by the petitioners named above, challenging order dated 17.12.2007, taking cognizance of offence punishable under Section 323 of CrPC and order dated 20.01.2009 rejecting prayer of discharge made under Section 258 of CrPC, passed by learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Agartala, West Tripura, in connection with case No. Misc. 993 of 2007 and further prayed for discharging them from the liability of the criminal case.
2. Heard learned counsel, Mr. Sekhar Dutta for the petitioners and learned P.P., Mr. A. Ghosh for the State respondent and learned senior counsel, Mr. P.K. Biswas, assisted by learned counsel, Mr. P. Majumder for respondent No. 2, the de facto complainant.
3. Fact, necessary for disposal of the present petition, is that the de facto complainant, Sri Kamal Ranjan Ghosh, respondent No. 2 herein, submitted a First Information Report in writing to SI Balaram Sen, Officer In-charge of Lembucherra Police Outpost under Lefunga PS alleging that on 05.11.2007 during office hours the de facto complainant, Kamal Ranjan Ghosh was performing his duties in Poultry Division of ICAR, Lembucherra and at that time the accused petitioner, Dr. Suresh Malik, Supervising Officer of Poultry Division, ICAR, arrived there and picked up an altercation with Kamal Ranjan Ghosh and all on a sudden Sri Malik caught hold collar of Sri Kamal Ranjan Ghosh and started dragging him. At that time, the other accused Dr. Narendra Pratap Singh, Joint Director of ICAR, Lembucherra, who was at a short distance rushed there and started punching blows on the face of the de facto complainant, Kamal Ranjan Ghosh and, as a result, Kamal Ranjan Ghosh fell down and started shouting. The incident was witnessed by some other staff who were present on the spot.
3.1. On receipt of that complaint, SI Balaram Sen made GD Entry No. 142 dated 05.11.2007 in the G.D. Book of Lembucherra Police Outpost and started investigation of the incident.
3.2. On 12.11.2007, SI Balaram Sen, O/C of Lembucherra Police Outpost made a prayer to the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Agartala, West Tripura praying for permitting him to submit Police Report (P.R. in short) under Section 323 of IPC and the prayer was forwarded through the O/C, Lefunga PS and that prayer of SI Balaram Sen was placed before the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Agartala, through learned Chief Judicial Magistrate and by order passed on that day learned Magistrate, First Class, allowed the police officer to submit P.R. under Section 323 of IPC.
3.3. Thereafter on 17.12.2007, SI Balaram Sen of Lembucherra Police Outpost submitted the P.R. against the petitioners for commission of offence punishable under Section 323 of IPC on the basis of which cognizance has been taken by impugned order 17.12.2007 and the petitioners were summoned to appear before the Court of Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Agartala, West Tripura.
3.4. On receipt of the summons, the accused petitioners appeared and they were released on bail. Thereafter, on 20.01.2009 the accused petitioners filed an application under Section 258 of CrPC praying for discharging them from the criminal prosecution and that prayer has been rejected by learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class by impugned order dated 20.01.2009, and hence, the present petition, challenging both the order, taking cognizance and the order rejecting prayer under Section 258 of CrPC.
4. Learned counsel, Mr. Dutta appearing for the accused petitioners has argued that SI Balaram Sen, the investigating officer did not comply the provisions of Section 155 of CrPC, and hence, the criminal proceeding has been vitiated and the accused petitioners are liable to be discharged. He has further argued that the allegations made in the police report are vague, uncertain and suffer from inherent improbabilities which the learned Magistrate while taking cognizance has failed to consid
