KEYA MAZUMDAR Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) LEARNED Advocate for the petitioner and the learned Advocate for the state are present.

(2.) AFFIDAVIT-OF-SERVICE shows that notice was sent to the opposite party/ de facto complainant by registered post with A/d. From the postal endorsement, it appears that intimation was given. But still the de facto complainant did not receive the same. As such, I consider that notice was properly sent to the de facto complainant. Since the de facto complainant is not appearing, so the revisional application is taken up for hearing in presence of the learned Advocate for the petitioner and the learned Advocate for the State.

(3.) HAVE heard the submissions of the learned Advocate for both the sides. It appears that a case under section 494/406 was started against the petitioners by the de facto complainant. On the basis of that a police case was started and chargesheet has already been submitted under section 496/494/406/34 IPC. At the very outset, Mrs. Goswami, learned Advocate for the petitioner pointed out that a case under section 494 IPC cannot be investigated by police. Section 198 of the Cr. PC enjoins that a regular complaint is to be filed before the learned magistrate by the complainant. Mr. Roy learned Advocate for the State also conceded this legal position. As such, that there cannot be any doubt that the case, as pending against the present petitioner under section 494 IPC, is not maintainable.