SANTOSH BHATTACHARJEE Vs. STATE OF WEST BENGAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revisional application is for quashing the proceeding being G.R. Case No. 1536/95 under section 143/342 of the Indian Penal Code pending before the learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate. Barrackpore arising out of Dum Dum Police Station case No. 153, dated 17.5.1995 under section 143/432 of Indian Penal Code.

(2.) One Mr. R.K. Banerjee, District Engineer, Northern District of CESC, filed one written information before the Officer-in-Charge, Dum Dum Police Station alleging commission of offence under sections 143/342 of Indian Penal Code and on receipt of the same, Dum Dum Police Station started the P.S. Case No. 153 dated 17.5.1995 under section 143/342 and subsequently after completion of investigation, charge-sheet was submitted before the learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate at Barrackpore when by his order dated 4.9.98, the learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Barrackpore took cognizance and issued W.P.A. against the accused persons of the concerned case including the present revisionist before us.

(3.) In the instano application, the objection has been taken by the revisionist that on 4.9.95. the learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Barrackpore mechanically took cognizance relying only on charge-sheet without considering other documents or relevant extracts and statements as contemplated in section 173(5) of the Code of Criminal Procedure and issued warrant of proclamation and attachment against the petitioner and others fixing 7.6.96 for ER further, it has been contended in the petition that the learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Barrackpore failed to record his satisfaction to ascertain as to whether there are sufficient materials against the petitioner and others for committing offence under sections 143/342 of the Indian Penal Code at the time of taking cognizance. It has further been contended that the taking of cognizance by the learned Magistrate is not in accordance with law, and, therefore, the subsequent proceeding has become void and further continuation of the aforesaid proceeding is certainly a gross abuse of the process of law.