MRITYUNJOY DOLUI Vs. STATE OF WEST BENGAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present petitioner has been arraigned in connection with a case relating to the offences punishable under Sections 498A/406/34 of the Indian Penal Code. During investigation, the Investigating Officer of the case moved two applications, one on November 15, 2009 and another on December 18, 2009. In the application moved on November 15, 2009, the Investigating Officer prayed for Courts permission to break open the door of the house of the accused Mrityunjoy Dolui and to recover the stridhan articles as per the list submitted by the defacto-complainant and in the application moved on December 18, 2009, the Investigating Officer prayed that the accused Mrityunjoy Dolui and the others be directed to hand over the stridhan articles to the defacto-complainant. Both the matters were taken up for hearing on 1st February, 2010 when the Learned Magistrate, amongst others, made the following orders; THE accused Monoranjan Dolui is hereby directed to be present under the provisions of Section 100 Cr.P.C. at the time of such preparation of the list in order to proceed with the smooth investigation of this case and he is further directed to open the door himself otherwise the I.O. will be at liberty to take all necessary steps to open the same.

(2.) It is submitted by the Learned Counsel of the petitioner that during the pendency of this criminal revisional application, the aforesaid order has been given effect and the police made the search and seized the alleged stridhan articles. He further submitted, however, at the time of search and seizure, the present petitioner, accused Monoranjan Dolui, was not present as directed by the Learned Court below. According to the learned advocate of the petitioner the direction upon the accused/petitioner to be present at the time of the search and seizure is wholly uncalled-for and that part of the order is liable to be set aside. On the other hand, Mr. Kallol Mondal, the Learned Counsel appearing for the State, in his usual fairness submitted that there was no justification in passing such direction against an accused person.