Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)
Santosh Kumar Sahu & Anr vs The State Of West Bengal & Ors on 14 November, 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
CRIMINAL REVISIONAL JURISDICTION
APPELLATE SIDE
The Hon'ble JUSTICE BIBEK CHAUDHURI
CRR 3934 of 2022
Santosh Kumar Sahu & Anr.
-Vs-
The State of West Bengal & Ors.
For the Petitioners: Mr. Soumyajit Das Mahapatra, Adv.
Heard on: 14 November, 2022.
Judgment on: 14 November, 2022.
BIBEK CHAUDHURI, J. : -
1.
The petitioners have filed the instant revision praying for quashing
of the investigational proceeding in connection with Kharagpur (Local)
Police Station Case No.855 of 2022 dated 16th October, 2022 under
Sections 342/448/323/354/379/506/34 of the IPC and Section 8 of the
Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act.
2. Learned Advocate for the petitioners submits as follows:-
3. The husband of the petitioner, namely, Supriyo Bardhan filed an
application under Section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure
alleging, certain incidents that took place on 2nd January, 7th January, 3rd
February and 22nd March of 2022 against the petitioners on the allegation
that the petitioner allegedly threatened the plaintiff and his wife with
filthy language and intending to outrage his wife's modesty to obtain her
signature on some blank stamp papers. It is also alleged that the
petitioners and his associates also threatened their minor daughter.
4. The learned Magistrate directed the jurisdictional police officer to
inquire into the matter and submit a report to him. The Offier-in-Charge
of Kharagpur Local P.S submitted a report on 4th September, 2022 and on
the basis of such report the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate refused to
pass any order under Section 156(3) of the Cr.P.C directing the police
authority to register a specific case against the petitioners on the basis of
the said application. Subsequently, the opposite party No.2 who is the
wife of the applicant in the previous application under Section 156(3) of
the Cr.P.C against the petitioners filed a complaint alleging a fictitious
incident dated 31st December, 2021 and made a prayer before the learned
Magistrate for sending the said application to the local police station
treating the same as FIR and to start a specific case against the
petitioners.
5. The learned Chief Judicial Magistrate-in-Charge vide impugned
order dated 23rd September, 2022 granted the prayer of the opposite party
No.2 under Section 156(3) of the Cr.P.C directing the Officer-in-Charge of
Kharagpur Local Police Station to cause investigation into the case by
treating the petition of complaint as FIR.
6. The learned Advocate for the petitioners submits that the issue
involved in the instant revision is as to whether after dismissal of an
application under Section 156(3) of the Cr.P.C filed by the husband of the
complainant, a second application on selfsame facts and circumstances is
maintainable at the instance of the wife of the original complainant.
Having gone through the documents annexed with the instant revision, it
is ascertained that the first application under Section 156(3) of the Cr.P.C
filed by the husband of the present opposite party No.2 was confined with
the allegation of causing threat against the petitioners. However,
subsequent application filed by the opposite party No.2 prima facie
discloses offence under Sections 342/448/323/354/379/506/34 of the
IPC read with Section 8 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences
Act. Moreover, the learned Advocate for the petitioners is absolutely
misconceived because an order of rejection of application under Section
156(3) of the Cr.P.C does not operate as res judicata and filing of
complaint on the selfsame incident is not barred. (See Hima Pathak vs.
State of U.P : 2007 CrLJ (NOC) 132).
7. For the reasons stated above, I do not find any merit in the instant
revision and the application is summarily dismissed.
(Bibek Chaudhuri, J.)
