MONTU MONDAL Vs. STATE OF WEST BENGAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Order dated 18th December, 2015 passed by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Chanchal, Malda in connection with G.R. Case No. 1256 of 2015 arising out of Harishchandrapur Police Station Case No. 525 of 2015 dated 23rd August, 2015 under Sections 302/120B/34 of the Indian Penal Code read with Sections 25(i)(a)/27 of the Arms Act refusing prayer for fresh investigation has been assailed. F.I.R. was lodged by the petitioner, inter alia, alleging that the opposite party nos. 2 to 11 were trying to dispossess him and his family members from the land in question and had been resorting to various unlawful and criminal activities. Series of criminal cases had been registered against the said miscreants over this issue in the past. It has further been alleged that on 23rd January, 2015 around 9/10 A.M. wife of the de-facto complainant found that the mother of the victim was lying in an injured condition in the house with gun shot injury. It is further alleged that opposite party nos. 2 and 3 had demanded six lakhs of rupees in connection with the land but he had refused the same. He suspected that the opposite party nos. 2 to 11 herein in conspiracy and collusion with each other had committed the murder of his mother who was residing in the said property. Investigation commenced in the matter and one of the F.I.R. named accused persons namely, opposite party no.11 was arrested in connection with the case. It has been submitted that prayers for bail of opposite party no.11 were repeatedly rejected by the learned Magistrate, inter alia, observing that there is sufficient material in the case diary implicating him. In the course of investigation involvement of other accused persons namely, opposite party nos. 12 to 16 transpired and they were also arrested. In conclusion of investigation, however, charge-sheet was filed only against opposite party nos. 12 to 16 and a prayer for discharge was made in respect of the F.I.R. named accused persons namely, opposite party nos. 2 to 11 herein on the ground of insufficient evidence. The petitioner filed an application for reinvestigation which was turned down by the learned Magistrate vide impugned order dated 18th December, 2015. Hence, the present petition has been filed.

(2.) Mr. Debasis Roy, learned advocate appearing for the petitioner submitted that there is clear indication as to the motive of the opposite party nos. 2 to 12 to evict the petitioner and his family members from the property and the murder was committed as a sequel to such motive. He further submitted that the orders passed by the learned Magistrate in the midst of investigation belied the fact that there is no material against the discharged accused persons. He submitted that the investigation was not conducted in a fair manner and it was fashioned to shield the real offenders from prosecution. He accordingly, prayed for reinvestigation by a superior investigating agency. He relied on Vinay Tyagi vs. Irshad Ali @ Deepak & Ors. reported in (2013) 4 SCC (Cri) 557.

(3.) On the other hand, Mr. Anand Kesari, learned advocate appearing for the State produced the case diary. He submitted that no material could be collected against the F.I.R. named accused persons and accordingly, prayer was made for discharge.