NARENDRA PRATAP SINGH Vs. STATE OF TRIPURA

JUDGEMENT

(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.) 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 consider and, therefore, the cognizance taken cannot stand and is liable to be interfered and quashed. In fine, Mr. Dutta, learned counsel has submitted that the Magistrate mechanically passed order dated 20.01.2009 and rejected the petition under Section 258 of CrPC and that order is also liable to be set aside and quashed.