IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA CRIMINAL REVISIONAL JURISDICTION APPELLATE SIDE Present:

The Hon’ble Justice Shampa Dutt (Paul)

CRR 2536 of 2022 Monowara Sardar Vs.

State of West Bengal & Ors.

For the Petitioner : Mr. Kaushik Gupta, Adv.

Mr. Arnab Nandi, Adv.

Ms. Simoyee Mukherjee, Adv.

For the State : Mr. Ranabir Roy Chowdhury, Adv.

Mr. Sandip Chakraborty, Adv.

For the O.P. No.9 : Mr. Arkadyuti Pahari, Adv.

Ms. Gargi Maity, Adv.

Hearing concluded on : 14.01.2025 Judgment on : 24.01.2025 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:-

“…….…After due perusal of record, it is seen that cognizance has already been taken. I find that there is no error on the face of investigation.

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 Diary has submitted that the relevant document in the present case is the statement of the victim recorded under section 164 Cr.P.C. and trial court is sufficiently empowered to consider the same at the time of trial.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the following judgments:-

1. Vinubhai Haribhai Malaviya & Ors. vs. State of Gujarat &

Ors. reported in A.I.R. 2019 S.C. 5233.

2. Azija Begum vs. State of Maharashtra & Anr. reported in

2012 (1) Calcutta Cri.L.J. 650.

6. Learned counsel on behalf of the respondent No.9 has also filed his written notes of argument and relied upon the following judgments:-

1. Vinubhai Haribhai Malaviya & Ors. vs. State of Gujarat &

Ors. reported in (2019) 17 SCC 1.

2. Amrutbhai Shambhubhai Patel vs. Sumanbhai Kantibhai Patel & Ors., reported in (2017) 4 SCC 177.

7. In K. Vadivel vs K. Shanthi & Ors., (2024) 10 SCR 1, in Criminal Appeal No. 4058 of 2024, decided on 30 September, 2024, the Supreme Court held:-

“32. Ultimately, the contextual facts and the attendant circumstances have to be singularly evaluated and analyzed to decide the needfulness of further investigation or reinvestigation to unravel the truth and mete out justice to the parties (see Pooja Pal vs. Union of India & Ors. (2016) 3 SCC 135, para 83). As noticed in Ram Lal Narang vs. State (Delhi Administration) (1979) 2 SCC 322, (para 20) where fresh materials come to light which would implicate persons not previously accused or absolve persons already accused or where it comes to the notice of the investigating agency that a person already accused of an offence has a good alibi, it may be the duty of the investigating agency to investigate the genuineness of the same and submit a report to the court.

33. However, the further investigation cannot be permitted to do a fishing and roving enquiry when the police had already filed a charge-sheet and the very applicant for further investigation, in this case respondent no. 1, has not whispered about anything new in her evidence as is now sought to be averred in the application. There must be some reasonable basis which should trigger the application for further investigation so that the court is able to arrive at a satisfaction that ends of justice require the ordering/permitting of further investigation. In Hasanbhai Valibhai Qureshi vs. State of