TAPAS PAUL Vs. BIPLAB KUMAR CHOWDHURY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) A learned Single Judge of this Court (Dipankar Datta, J) has, by an order dated 28th July, 2014, entertained Writ Petition No.20515(W) of 2014 filed by one Biplab Kumar Chowdhury. By way of interim relief, the learned Single Judge has directed that an FIR be registered against Tapas Paul, a Member of Parliament, on the basis of the complaint dated 1st July, 2014 lodged by the petitioner with the Inspector-in-Charge, Nakashipara Police Station, District Nadia, for his utterances at a public meeting addressed by him, which was telecast by private television channels on 14th June, 2014. The learned Judge has further directed that in view of the sensitivity of the matter the investigation should be entrusted to the Criminal Investigation Department (hereinafter referred to as "CID"), and has directed the Director General of Police to issue instructions to the DIG, CID for a free, fair, proper and meaningful investigation of the FIR. The learned Single Judge has then ordered that the investigation would be monitored by this Court and that the Investigating Officer should not file the police report under Section 173(2) of the Cr.P.C. without obtaining leave of this Court.

(2.) Aggrieved by this decision of the learned Single Judge the State of West Bengal and Tapas Paul have filed two separate appeals. These appeals were heard by the Division Bench (Girish Chandra Gupta and Tapabrata Chakraborty, JJ). The learned Judges of the Division Bench could not reach any consensus in the appeals. Gupta, J, has held that the learned Single Judge ought not to have concluded even prima facie, which cognizable offences had been committed by Paul or directed the registration of an FIR without the police forming an opinion in the matter. He was of the opinion that this would create hurdles for the Magistrate or the Court to decide whether there are sufficient grounds for proceeding to try the accused. The learned Judge has further held that no direction to monitor the investigation ought to have been issued when neither the enquiry nor the investigation had commenced. As regards maintainability of the writ petition, Gupta J has observed that the learned Single Judge had no occasion to examine whether the writ petition was maintainable as these arguments were advanced for the first time before the Division Bench. As the writ petition is still pending the learned judge confined his decision to the impugned order. While setting aside the impugned order, Gupta, J. observed that he hoped and trusted that the State would act sincerely and investigate the matter in accordance with law and bring the complaint of the writ petitioner to its logical conclusion.

(3.) Chakraborty, J on the other hand, has concurred with all the observations and findings of the learned Single Judge and, has therefore, dismissed the appeals.