BIPLAB KUMAR DASGUPTA Vs. CHAMPAK SEN CHOWDHURY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Mr. Sekhar Basu, learned Advocate, appearing with Mr. Mukteswar Maity on behalf of the petitioners, Mr. Sandip Ghosal, learned Advocate, appearing with Mr. Avijit Mukherjee on behalf of the opposite party Nos. 1 and 2 as well as Mr. Prabir Mitra, learned Advocate, appearing on behalf of the State.

(2.) A complaint alleging commission of offences punishable under Sections 406/477A/418/420/357/348/323/120B of the Indian Penal Code against the accused/opposite party Nos. 2 and 3 being made before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Alipore, the Learned Magistrate ordered an investigation by the police under Section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Whereupon, police recorded a FIR and registered Ballygunge Police Station Case No. 24 of 2004. After completion of investigation of the said case police filed a final report in Court stating that no case has been made out against the accused persons and prayed for their discharge from the case. When a notice was sent to the defacto- complainant, the petitioner herein, who appeared and filed a naraji petition, raising objection against the said final report. The learned Magistrate after hearing the parties while accepted the final report took cognizance on the naraji petition. The petitioners challenged the said order in this criminal revision.

(3.) Mr. Sekhar Basu, the learned Advocate for the petitioners vehemently contended that after considering the police report when the learned Magistrate come to a definite conclusion that the case needs further investigation the acceptance of such final report is not at all called for and wholly illegal. According to him the learned Magistrate ought to have sent the case for further investigation instead of taking cognizance on naraji petition. Mr. Basu prays that the order impugned be set aside and case be sent back to the Court below with a direction for further investigation by the police.