SAMAR MONDAL Vs. STATE OF WEST BENGAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Learned Advocate for the petitioner, learned Advocate for the opposite party/complainant and the learned Advocate for the State are present.

(2.) Heard the learned Advocates for all the sides so far as the revisional applications a.re concerned. It appears that G.R. Case No. 326 of 2006 arising out of Arambagh P.S. Case No. 132 of 2006 dated 30.7.2006 was started on the basis of a petition of complaint filed before the learned Magistrate by the opposite party No. 2. Further continuation of the said case has been challenged in these two revisional applications by the petitioners claiming therein that the de facto complainant/opposite party No. 2 practiced fraud on the Court by way of suppressing the fact that on earlier occasion one petition of complainant on the self-same ground was filed and that it was pending in the Court of the learned Magistrate for recording of the statements of the witnesses as per provisions of Section 200, Cr.P.C.

(3.) The learned Advocate for the opposite party No. 2/complainant submits that there is no bar for the complainant to file a subsequent complaint praying for sending the same to the police for investigation as provided under Section 156(3), Cr.P.C. According to him, the earlier complaint was dismissed for non-prosecution and as such, the Police Case which was started on the basis of the second complaint should proceed in accordance with law and so the prayer for quashing should be rejected.