Subject :
O R D E R
Leave granted .
2. Heard Mr. Sanjay Hegde, learned Senior counsel appearing for th e appellant. Also Heard Mr. Siddharth Bhatnagar, learned Senior Counse l appearing for the respondent No.1 and Mr. Sunil Fernandes appearing o n behalf of State of West Bengal – respondent No.2 .
3. On 17.04.2023, this court passed the following order: - “One of the issue to be considered in this case i s whether the High Court was correct in understanding tha t the purported order dated 22.01.2015 of the learned ACJM , Asansol was without the endorsement of the Magistrate .
In the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the State o f West Bengal (respondent No. 2), a specific averment i s raised to the following effect :
“5. In furtherance thereof, the answerin g respondent has verified the said order and obtaine d a certified copy of the said order from th e concerned court, which substantiates that the FI R was registered by the concerned police station o n the basis of the order passed by the Ld. ACJM , Asansol. The certified copy in original shall b e placed before this Hon’ble Court during the cours e of hearing, whereas a copy of the said order passe d by the Ld. Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate , Asansol in Serial No. 49/2015 is herein annexed an d marked as ANNEXURE R-2/1. ”
The above would show that the FIR came to be registere d only on the basis of an order passed by the learned ACJM , Asansol. But this is contested by the learned counsel fo r the other side .
To clarify the confusion on the impugned understanding o f the High Court and the contrary view projected in th e counter affidavit of the State of West Bengal purportedl y on the basis of the examination of records in th e Magistrate’s court, we deem it appropriate to call for a report from the District Judge, District Paschim Bardhaman , West Bengal clarifying whether the Magistrate had passed a n order on 22.01.2015 with his signature, to register a FI R and to start investigation, on the basis of the complain t lodged by the petitioner Sanjay Gupta .
The above report be furnished within four weeks fro m today and the case be listed after receipt of the report. ”
4. Since then the report is received from the learned Distric t Judge, Paschim Bardhaman, West Bengal enclosing the Order Sheet o f the proceedings of the ACJM, Asansol. The proceeding date d
22.01.2015 reads as under: - “Complainant namely Sanjay Gupta files a petition agains t accused namely Ashok Kumar Sontholia with a prayer fo r investigation U/s-406/420/467/468/471 of I.P.C .
Hd. Considered .
Allegation made needs to be investigated .
Let the ptn. of complaint be sent to the O/C Jamuria P.S. fo r investigation U/s 156(3) CrP.C. with a direction to treat th e same as FIR and start investigation in accordance with law. ”
5. The above would indicate that the learned Magistrate considered th e complaint of the informant and ordered the same to be forwarded to th e O/C Jamuria Police Station for investigation under Section 156(3) of th e CrPC and to treat the same as FIR and to commence investigation i n accordance with law .
6. The only basis for the impugned order of the High Court to quas h the proceedings was that the FIR was registered under Section 156(3) o f the CrPC, without any endorsement of the learned Magistrate. This i s found to be factually incorrect .
7. After considering the material on record and the submission of th e learned counsel for the parties, we deem it appropriate to set aside th e order dated 01.11.2017 in the CRR No.716 of 2015. The appeal is allowe d accordingly. Resultantly, the police is required to take th e investigation to its logical conclusion. As the complaint is pendin g since 2015, investigation be concluded without any unnecessary delay .
8. Pending application(s), if any, stand closed .
.....................J .
[HRISHIKESH ROY ]
.....................J . [PRASHANT KUMAR MISHRA ]
NEW DELH I JANUARY 02, 202 4 ITEM NO.54 COURT NO.6 SECTION II- B S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDING S Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No(s).8807/201 7 (Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 01-11-2017 i n CRR No. 716/2015 passed by the High Court At Calcutta )
SANJAY GUPTA Petitioner(s )
VERSU S ASHOK KUMAR SONTHOLIA & ANR. Respondent(s )
(report has been received .
IA No. 71494/2018 - PERMISSION TO FILE ADDITIONA L DOCUMENTS/FACTS/ANNEXURES )
Date : 02-01-2024 This matter was called on for hearing today .
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HRISHIKESH RO Y HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRASHANT KUMAR MISHR A For Petitioner(s) Mr. Sanjay R. Hegde, Sr. Adv .
Mr. Azim H. Laskar, Adv .
Mr. Bikas Kar Gupta, Adv .
Ms. Debarati Sadhu, Adv .
Mr. J. P. Agarwal, Adv .
Mr. Chandra Bhushan Prasad, AO R Mr. S.K. Biswal, Adv .
For Respondent(s) Mr. Siddharth Bhatnagar, Sr. Adv .
Mr. Nikhil Rohatgi, Adv .
Mr. Shashank Khurana, Adv .
Ms. Ranjeeta Rohatgi, AO R Mr. Sunil Fernandes, Adv . Mr. Sanjeev Kaushik, Adv .
Ms. Priyansha Sharma, Adv .
Ms. Diksha Dadu, Adv .
Ms. Muskan Surana, Adv .
Ms. Astha Sharma, AO R UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the followin g
O R D E R
Leave granted .
The appeal is allowed in terms of the signed order .
Pending application(s), if any, stand closed .
(DEEPAK JOSHI) (KAMLESH RAWAT )
COURT MASTER (SH) ASSISTANT REGISTRA R (Signed Order is placed on the File )
Vague 'Bad Work' Can't Presume Penetrative Sexual Assault Under POCSO Section 4 Without Evidence: Patna High Court
28 Apr 2026
Limiting Crop Damage Compensation to Specific Wild Animals Excluding Birds Violates Article 14: Bombay HC
28 Apr 2026
Appeal Limitation in 1991 Police Rules Yields to Uttarakhand Police Act 2007 on Inconsistency: Uttarakhand HC
28 Apr 2026
Nashik Court Reserves Verdict on Khan's TCS Bail Plea
29 Apr 2026
Delhi Court Grants Bail to I-PAC Director in PMLA Case
30 Apr 2026
No Historic Record of Saraswati Temple Demolition, Muslim Body Tells MP High Court in Bhojshala Dispute
30 Apr 2026
No Absolute Bar on Simultaneous Parole/Furlough for Co-Accused Under Delhi Prisons Rules: Delhi High Court
30 Apr 2026
Rejection of Jurisdiction Plea under Section 16 Arbitration Act Not Challengeable under Section 34 Till Final Award: Supreme Court
30 Apr 2026
'Living Separately' Under Section 13B HMA Means Cessation Of Marital Obligations, Regardless Of Residence: Patna High Court
30 Apr 2026
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.