PRATAP KUNDU Vs. RABINDRA NATH KUNDU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This application under section 482 read with section 483 of the Criminal Procedure Code is for quashing of the proceeding in G.R. Case No. 1471/82 arising out of Shibpur Police Station Case No. 29(6)/82 dated 28.6.82 under sections 448, 427 and 323 read with section 34 of the Indian Penal Code pending before the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Howrah.

(2.) Briefly stated the facts and circumstances leading to the filing of the instant revision proceedings are as follows :- That on 14.6.82 Rabindra Nath Kundu, the step brother of petitioner No. 1 filed a complaint under the aforesaid provisions of the Indian Penal Code in the Court of S.D.J.M.,Howrah against accused/petitioners, alleging that the accused persons entered into the Meter-room of the complainant at 105/1, Mahendra Bhattacharjee Road, Shibpore damaged the doors, threw the articles kept inside and assaulted the complainant. The learned Magistrate directed the police to investigate the case under section 156(3) of the Criminal Procedure Code. The police on 28.6.82 recorded the aforesaid police case against the accused/petitioners and started investigation. It is further alleged that on 29.6.82, the police arrested the petitioners, kept them in the police station and subsequently released the petitioners on bail. It is further alleged that police on completion of the investigation submitted chargesheet on 29.6.83. It is further alleged that in connection with this case, the petitioners appeared before the Court of S.D.J.M., Howrah on 8.7.82. Subsequently, the case was transferred to the Court of Sri B.N. Baidya, Judicial Magistrate for disposal and this took place on 20.11.85, Thereafter, the petitioner came up in revision on 2nd December, 1985, alleging that the offences complained of being summons procedure case, under section 167(5) of the Criminal Procedure Code, it was obligatory on the part of the police to complete the investigation within 6 months, but the police failed to complete the same within that period and submitted the chargesheet after the expiry of the stipulated period of 6 months on 29.6.83. Therefore, the order dated 12.2.83 was bad in law as on that day the learned Magistrate ought to have stopped further investigation of the case and should not have allowed the I.O. further time for the purpose of investigation. It is further alleged that the cognizance taken on the basis of such chargesheet is also bad in law.

(3.) I have heard the learned Advocate for the petitioners. He has only submitted that since the police was allowed to proceed with the investigation of the case even after expiry of the 6 months limit, after the arrest of the accused, such further investigation and subsequent submission of the chargesheet is bad in law. Before I proceed further with the matter I should quote the specific provision contained in section 167(5) of Criminal Procedure Code along with the West Bengal Amendment :-