RAM NIWAS CHOWDHURY Vs. SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present revision petition has been preferred by the petitioner praying, inter alia, that the order dated 11th March, 2011, passed by the learned Additional District & Sessions Judge Fast Track Court No. 8, Kolkata, whereby he affirmed the order passed by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate 12th Court, Calcutta in GR Case No. 1835 of 1994, initiated on the basis of a FIR drawn by C.B.I., Anti Corruption Branch, Calcutta, arising out of FIR being RC No. 33 of 1992 under Sections 1206/420/466/ 467/468/471/511 of Indian Penal Code and under Section 13(2) and 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, be quashed along with charges framed by the Metropolitan Magistrate against the petitioner under Sections 120B/209/419/420/467/471/511 of Indian Penal Code.

(2.) The prime grievance made by the learned Counsel for the petitioner is that no cognizance could be taken by the Metropolitan Magistrate on the FIR drawn by the CBI as mandatory procedure envisaged under Section 340 of the Criminal Procedure Code was not followed. Furthermore, the learned trial Judge could not take cognizance of the offence as no complaint was filed by the registry of this Court. The Counsel for the petitioner has referred to Section 195 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to show that no Court can take cognizance of offence under Section 209 of IPC until the requisite complaint is filed by the registry of this Court.

(3.) Few writ petitions were filed in this Court in which stay order was passed. It appeared that some interpolation was made in the cause title of the writ petitions and the petitioner took advantage of stay order. This conduct of the petitioner was condemned by learned Judge of this Court (Ajit Kumar Sengupta, J. as His Lordship then was) by making the following observations :