INDRANI CHAKRABORTY Vs. STATE OF WEST BENGAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition is directed against an order dated December 6, 2013 passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Barasat (hereafter the CJM) whereby he discharged the respondents 6 and 7 from G.R. 2116 of 2013, arising out of Baguiati Police Station FIR No. 258/13 dated June 1, 2013 under sections 447/323/354/506, Indian Penal Code (hereafter the IPC), upon considering a supplementary charge-sheet filed by the respondent 5, the investigating officer.

(2.) A written complaint dated May 31, 2013 was lodged by the petitioner before the Officer-in-Charge, Baguiati Police Station giving rise to the aforesaid FIR. Bare perusal of the complaint would reveal an allegation that the respondents 6 and 7, who are attached to the State Police Force, by exerting influence as police officers and threatening to implicate the petitioner in false cases had forced her to sign a development agreement for benefiting the respondent 8 and in course thereof assaulted and molested her. On surrender before the CJM, the respondents 6 to 8 were taken in custody and subsequently released on bail. The FIR was investigated by the respondent 5, and on completion of investigation police report under section 173(2) of the Cr.P.C. was filed before the CJM against the respondents 6 to 8 vide charge-sheet bearing No. 334/13 for commission of offences under sections 447/325/354/506/34, IPC. By an order dated September 9, 2013, the CJM took cognizance of the offence pertaining to GR 2116/2013. However, all on a sudden, November 30, 2013 to be precise, the respondent 5 filed a second charge-sheet under section 173 Cr.P.C. (bearing No. 524/13) before the CJM seeking to implicate only the respondent 8 and purporting to discharge respondents 6 and 7 of the alleged offence. The second charge-sheet records, inter alia, as follows:

(3.) On the question of maintainability of the writ petition, Mr. Kishore Datta, learned advocate (now senior advocate) argued that (a) this is a case of improper exercise of power of investigation, since (b) section 173 of the Cr.P.C. does not permit investigation after submission of a charge-sheet, unless the relevant magistrate permits so in terms of sub-section (8) thereof, as a result which (c) the present complainant has become a victim covered by Article 21 of the Constitution, and (d) that since a writ of certiorari could be issued if an inferior Court acts without or in excess of jurisdiction, (e) the revisional and inherent powers of the High Court under sections 401 and 482, Cr.P.C. respectively cannot be construed as a fetter for exercise of Article 226 jurisdiction by the High Court, He, accordingly, submitted that the High Court under Article 226 can most certainly intervene in a matter of this kind.