HIMANGSU KR BARDHAN Vs. STATE OF W B

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revisional application is for quashing of a proceeding being complaint case No. C-2393/92 under Section 406 of the Indian Penal Code now pending in the court of Id. Judicial Magistrate, 8th Court, Alipore, South 24 Parganas.

(2.) The complainant/opposite party No. 2 filed a petition of complaint in the court of Id. SDJM at Alipore against the present petitioner and others alleging commission of offences under Sections 403/406/411/465/471 of the Indian Penal Code. It was alleged in the petition of complaint that the complainants/mother had some gold ornaments which were kept during her life time in a locker at State Bank of India, CII Road Branch, in the joint name of the complainant and with the mother, who died on 14.7.70 and the said ornaments were taken from the State Bank Locker and were kept in a locker of UCO Bank, Park St. Branch in the joint name of complainant and the present petitioner. It was further alleged that the present petitioner took the said ornaments from the locker and kept in another locker in the Central Bank, Picnic Garden Branch, which is in the joint name of the present petitioner and his wife Bela Bardhan. It was stated in the complaint that the youngest sister of the complainant died in 1981 living behind three daughters as her legal heirs and the complainant and his sister requested the accused persons to bring the gold omaments of their mother which was 'Streedhan' property, but it was deferred on different pretext. It was alleged that the accused persons had committed offences under Section 403/406/411/120-B of the Indian Penal Code. On receipt of the said petition of complaint the Id. Magistrate took cognizance of the offence and transferred the case to the Id. Judicial Magistrate, 8th Court, Alipore. The ld. Magistrate after examining the complainant and one witness issued process under Section 406 IPC against three accused persons fixing 28.1.93 for service return and appearance.

(3.) Mr. Banerjee the ld. Advocate appearing for the petitioner submits that the order of taking cognizance of the offence be speaks of compete non- application of mind by the ld. Magistrate in the facts and circumstances of this case. Mr. Banerjee further submits that the ld. Magistrate did not record his prima facie satisfaction before directing cognizance of the offence rendering the same not sustainable in the eye of law.