NAMITA NASKAR Vs. STATE OF WEST BENGAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner had lodged a First Information Report being Gariahat Police Station Case No. 373 dated 13.8.2012 under sections 420/464/465/466/468/471/120B of the Indian Penal Code, inter alia, alleging that the accused persons had committed acts of forgery and thereby trying to convert valuable property and cause wrongful loss to the petitioner. Prayer has been made for further investigation in the matter by an officer attached to Detective Department. A report has been filed on behalf of the investigating agency that they have concluded the investigation and in the absence of conclusive opinion as to forgery, a final/closure report has been filed. Let the report be kept with the record. It is settled law as held in Bhagwant Singh v. State, 1985 AIR(SC) 1285that no closure/final report may be accepted by the learned Magistrate without giving an opportunity of hearing to the first informant. It is submitted by the learned Advocate of the petitioner that no opportunity was given to him. He further submitted that this Court has ample power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to direct further investigation by a superior investigating agency, i.e. C.I.D. having better forensic skills but the learned Magistrate under section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure is not entitled to direct further investigation by a superior agency. He relied on C.B.I. v. State of Rajasthan, 2001 SCC(Cri) 524. He submitted that the forensic expertise of a superior agency was sine qua non for investigating the crime of forgery in this case.

(2.) It is true in C.B.I. v. State of Rajasthan , it has been held that power under section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure does not permit learned Magistrate to direct investigation by a superior officer beyond officer-incharge of a police station. However, Section 36 of the Code of Criminal Procedure empowers a superior police officer to exercise such powers of the officer-incharge of a police station.

(3.) The Apex Court while interpreting the power of the Magistrate to direct investigation under section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure has held that such provision impliedly includes the power to monitor such investigation. In Sakiri Vasu v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors., 2008 2 SCC 409, the Apex Court held: