LAWS(CAL)-2015-8-42

PULAKNATH SANYAL Vs. THE STATE OF WEST BENGAL

Decided On August 17, 2015
Pulaknath Sanyal Appellant
V/S
The State Of West Bengal Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner has preferred this revisional application under Section 401 and Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 challenging the order dated 20th February, 2014 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate, 3rd Court, Suri, in G.R. No. 1041 of 2013 arising out of Suri Police Station Case No. 408 of 2013 dated 19th December, 2013 and also the subsequent orders passed by learned Magistrate in the said proceeding.

(2.) The petitioner being the defacto complainant started criminal proceeding being Suri Police Station Case No. 408 of 2013 dated 19th December, 2013 under Sections 448/323/380/427/506 of the Indian Penal Code. The police submitted report under Section 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure disclosing offence under Section 448/323/427/506/34 of the Indian Penal Code. It appears from record that learned Magistrate posted the case for recording of evidence on February 25, 2015 and thereafter on April 22, 2015 and June 11, 2015 and thereafter on July 22, 2015. It also appears from record that learned Magistrate issued bailable warrant of arrest against the witnesses including the defacto complainant who happens to be the petitioner of the instant criminal revision.

(3.) Mr. Debabrata Roy, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner contends that the investigating officer did not inform the defacto complainant of the result of investigation in compliance with the provisions of Section 173(2)(ii) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. He submits that the provision of Section 173(2)(ii) of the Code of Criminal Procedure is mandatory in nature and non-compliance of the said provision by the investigating officer will vitiate the proceeding from the stage of taking cognizance by the learned Magistrate. Mr. Roy has relied on the decision of the Supreme Court in "Bhagwant Singh v. Commissioner of Police", 1985 SCC(Cri) 267 and the decision of our High Court in "East India Pharmaceutical Works Limited v. State of West Bengal", 2009 3 CalHN 91 in support of his above contention.