PAWAN KUMAR SANTHALIA Vs. STATE OF W B

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revlsional application has been preferred by the petitioners under sections 397/401 read with section 482 of Criminal Procedure Code praying for setting aside the order dated 4.9.03 passed by the learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate (in short SDJM), Malda in G.R. Case No. 1604 of 1997 arising out of Kaliachak P.S. Case No. 206 dated 4.12.97 thereby directing the Superintendent of Police (in short S.P.), Malda for further investigation into the said case and rejecting FRT No. 21 dated 14.2.03 and also rejecting prayer of the Investigating Officer (in short I.O.) to accord permission to initiate a proceeding under section 182/ 211 of the Indian Penal Code (in short I.P.C.) against the de facto complainant and also praying for quashing the criminal proceeding being G.R. Case No. 1604/97.

(2.) The facts of the case as it transpires from the revisional application is that Bina Devi Santhalia, the opposite party No. 2 filed a complaint in the Court of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate (in short CJM), Malda on 4.12.97 praying for sending the petition of complaint to O.C., Kaliachak P.S. for investigation under section 156(3) of Cr.P.C. and the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate duly forwarded the complaint to O.C., Kaliachak P.S. for investigation and on the basis of such complaint/First Information Report Kaliachak P.S. Case No. 206 dated 4.12.97 under sections 363/ 365/ 34 of I.P.C. was started against the accused persons including the present petitioners. The allegations made in the First Information Report by opposite party No. 2 Bina Devi Santhalia was that, on 15.12.96 there was a ceremony in the house of Kailash Agarwal to celebrate birth of his son and opposite party No. 2 along with her minor son Pankaj Kumar, aged about five years, attended the said ceremony. Bina Devi was talking with her relatives who assembled in the said ceremony and at about 1 P.M. she found her son absent and she started searching for her son. Subsequently, she learnt from some persons that the accused persons including the petitioners had taken away her son keeping her busy talking to other relatives. There was a rivalry between accused persons and husband of Bina Devi Santhalia and in order to teach a lesson to her husband, the accused persons kidnapped her minor son Pankaj. She earlier lodged written complaint at Kaliachak P.S. on 17.12.96 but, the police officers reduced it into G.D. Entry No. 706 dated 17.12.96 and did not take any step for investigation or for the recovery of the kidnapped minor son of complainant. Thereafter, she lodged the complaint before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate on 4.12.97 which was sent to the O.C., Kaliachak P.S. for investigation and accordingly the aforesaid Kaliachak P.S. Case was started.

(3.) The petitioners thereafter obtained anticipatory bail and after surrendering before learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate they were enlarged on regular bail. Subsequently C.I.D., West Bengal took up investigation and after completing investigation the Investigating Officer (in short I.O.) submitted final report No. 88 dated 27.4.01. The learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate after considering the materials on record by his order dated 30.5.02 directed further investigation into the matter. Thereafter, investigation was made for the second time by different I.O. and the second I.O. also submitted report in final form vide final report No. 21 dated 14.02.03 and also submitted a prayer before the learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate to accord sanction to initiate a criminal proceeding under sections 182/211 of Indian Penal Code against the complainant. The complainant Bina Devi filed a naraji petition against the said second final report. The accused persons also filed an application against the naraji petition. The learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Malda after considering the materials on record by his order dated 4.9.03 directed the S.P., Malda to reinvestigate the case by an officer not below the rank of Inspector. Challenging the said order the petitioners have moved this Court in this revisional application.