Mrs. Maya Rani Manna vs State Of West Bengal And Others
2022 Latest Caselaw 2980 Cal

IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA CRIMINAL REVISIONAL JURISDICTION

Present:

The Hon'ble Justice Kausik Chanda

C.R.R. NO. 767 OF 2020

MRS. MAYA RANI MANNA

-VERSUS-

STATE OF WEST BENGAL AND OTHERS

For the petitioner : Mr. Chandra Sekhar Saha, Adv., Mr. Shiba Prosad Bhattacharjee, Adv.

For the opposite party : Mr. Sailen Parbat, Adv., no.2 & 3. Mr. Ashis Kumar Dutta, Adv.

For the State                 : Mr. Imran Ali, Adv.,
                               Ms. Debjani Sahu, Adv.



Hearing concluded on          : 12.05.2022



Judgment on                   : 19.05.2022




Kausik Chanda, J.:-

In this revisional application, the petitioner sought to assail a

judgment and order dated December 12, 2019, passed by the learned

Judicial Magistrate, 3rd Court, Serampore, Hooghly, whereby the learned

Magistrate rejected a petition under Section 173(8) of the Code of Criminal

Procedure, 1973.

2. It appears that in the instant case, a charge sheet was filed by the

Investigating Agency under Sections 323/325/506 of the Indian Penal

Code, 1860.

3. The defacto complainant by filing the said petition under Section

173(8) of the Code of Criminal Procedure prayed for further investigation of

the case, inter alia, on the ground that the investigating agency ought to

have incorporated Sections 354A and 307 in the charge sheet.

4. The petition for further investigation was opposed by the State.

5. Learned Magistrate after hearing both the parties rejected the said

application holding, inter alia, as follows:

"It can be found, thus, that only upon cogent basis of any new finding and subsequent developments by the Investigating Officer even after the final report is submitted, this provision comes into operation and not on any other ground. Upon careful perusal of the provision, it can be safely concluded that the Legislature has not whispered any other person other than Officer in charge of concerned P.S who can take shelter of this section. One Case authority in this point is Amrutbhai Shambhubhai Patel vs Sumanbhai Kantibhai (2017) 2 SCC (Cr) 331 (2017) wherein Apex Court observed that further investigation by the officer in charge of concerned police station can be allowed after report u/s 173(2)

CrPC had been forwarded to the Magistrate where after such investigation, he obtains further evidence, oral or documentary in nature. Now, post cognizance stage, neither the Magistrate suo motu nor on the basis of an application filed by the defacto complainant/informant, further investigation can be directed. I do find the submission of Ld. Defense Counsel tenable in this point.

In such premises, this Court finds it just and proper to consider and reject the instant application on contest without costs.

Fix 12.03.20 for Hearing of application dated 23- 03-18."

6. It has been argued before this Court that the victim suffered a

fracture on her finger, but the provision of Section 326 of the Indian Penal

Code, 1860 was not incorporated in the charge sheet. The investigation was

carried out in a perfunctory manner and there is no bar to order further

investigation even after the cognizance is taken. In support of such

submission, the learned advocate for the petitioner relied upon the

judgments reported at (2015) 2 Cal LT 36 (Sakti Pada Ghosh v. State of

West Bengal) and (2004) 5 SCC 347 (Hasanbhai Valibhai Qureshi v.

State of Gujarat).

7. I am of the opinion that there was no scope to direct further

investigation in the facts of the present case.

8. The law relating to further investigation has been settled by the

Supreme Court in the judgment reported at (2019) 17 SCC 1 (Vinubhai

Haribhai Malaviya v. State of Gujarat), where it has been held that the

power of the police to further investigate of the offence continues till the

stage of trial commences and a criminal trial commences only after the

charges are framed. It was also held that in the interest of justice, the

powers can be exercised by the Magistrate suo motu depending on the facts

of the each case.

9. The judgment relied upon by the learned Magistrate reported at

(2017) 4 SCC 177 (Amrutbhai Shambhubhai Patel v. Sumanbhai

Kantibhai Patel), in fact, has been partly overruled by Vinubhai (supra)

on the point that whether the Magistrate can exercise the power to direct

further investigation of the case suo motu.

10. In that view of the law laid down in Vinubhai case, there cannot be

any doubt that in the present case there was no scope to order further

investigation by the learned Magistrate since the petition for further

investigation was filed after the framing of the charges and the

commencement of trial.

11. The judgments reported at (2015) 2 Cal LT 36 (Sakti Pada Ghosh

v. State of West Bengal) and (2004) 5 SCC 347 (Hasanbhai Valibhai

Qureshi v. State of Gujarat) are not applicable in this case. Those two

cases did not deal with a situation where the petition under Section 173(8)

of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 had been filed after the

commencement of the trial.

12. In that view of the matter though the reasoning of the learned

Magistrate is not approved, the ultimate conclusion arrived by him is not

interfered with.

13. Accordingly, C.R.R. No. 767 of 2020 is disposed of.

14. Urgent certified website copies of this judgment, if applied for, be

supplied to the parties subject to compliance with all the requisite

formalities.

(Kausik Chanda, J.)