Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)
Indranuj Chowdhury vs The State Of West Bengal & Anr on 8 September, 2022
Form J(1) IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
Criminal Revisional Jurisdiction
Appellate Side
Present :
The Hon'ble Justice Bibek Chaudhuri
CRR 1205 of 2022
Indranuj Chowdhury
Vs.
The State of West Bengal & Anr.
Mr. Moyukh Mukherjee
Mr. Abhijit Singh
Mr. Suvasis Saha
....for the petitioner
Mr. Madhusudan Sur, APP
Mr. Dipankar Paramanick
...for the State
Item No.11
Heard & Judgment on: 08.09.2022
Bibek Chaudhuri, J.
1. The petitioner/accused has assailed an order dated 15th
February, 2022 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, 1 st
Court at Barrackpore in G.R. Case No.7954 of 2019 rejecting
an application under Section 239 of the Code of Criminal
Procedure filed by the petitioner praying for discharging him
from the case on the ground of absence of any material to
frame charge against the accused/petitioner.
2. It is necessary to mention that Bizpur Police Station Case
No.207 of 2019 dated 23rd April, 2019 under Sections
342/323/506 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 75 of the
Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection) Act against the
petitioner on the basis of a written complaint submitted by
one Goutam Majhi.
3. It was alleged in the said written complaint that the
petitioner is the teacher-in-charge of Dariwala Free Primary
School. The daughter of the de facto complainant was a
student of Class-I in the said school. On 22 nd April, 2019 the
petitioner mercilessly assaulted the daughter of the de facto
complainant and wrongfully confined under the high bench of
the school. Other guardians of the students of the school
rescued the daughter of the de facto complainant.
4. The aforesaid case was entrusted to one Sanjay Naskar, SI
of Bizpur Police Station for investigation. The above named
Investigating Officer conducted investigation and finally
submitted charge sheet against the petitioner under Sections
342/323/506 of the Indian Penal Code read with Section 75
of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection) Act.
5. The petitioner duly appeared before the learned Magistrate
and on the date of consideration of charge, he filed an
application under Section 239 of the Code of Criminal
Procedure praying for discharge which was taken by the
learned Magistrate.
6. It is pointed out by the learned advocate for the petitioner
that in the charge sheet, one Tapas Gayen, Himangshu
Mondal, Bijoy Rajak, Pabitra Sarkar have been shown as
witness to the occurrence apart from the de facto
complainant who is cited as charge sheeted witness No.7. I
am in agreement with Mr. Mukherjee, learned advocate for
the petitioner that the de facto complainant is not an eye
witness of the occurrence. He lodged a complaint in the local
P.S. against the petitioner on being hearing the alleged fact
from other guardians. The Investigating Officer did not
examine any of the guardians of the wards of the said school
who allegedly saved the daughter of the de facto complainant
from the clutches of the petitioner. No student of the said
school was examined. Even the victim girl was not
examined. The Investigating Officer also did not pray for
recording statement of the victim girl under Section 164 of
the Code of Criminal Procedure. Charge sheeted witnesses
Tapas Gayen, Himangshu Mondal, Bijoy Rajak, Pabitra Sarkar
are hearsay witnesses. They did not see the incident.
7. The learned Magistrate rejected the application under
Section 239 of the Code of Criminal Procedure filed by the
petitioner on the ground that the victim was examined by a
medical practitioner on the date of occurrence and he found a
faint abrasion on the cheek of the victim. The Medical Officer
did not record the history of assault. The victim did not state
as to how she received injury on her cheek. Therefore, there
is no direct evidence in the record.
8. The petitioner has filed a supplementary affidavit annexing
the documents received by him in compliance of Section 207
of the Code of Criminal Procedure. All such documents
support the contention of the petitioner.
9. Learned P.P.-in-charge has produced the case diary.
10. Having heard the learned counsel and on perusal of
the entire materials on record this Court is of the prima facie
view that S.I. Sanjay Naskar, Investigating Officer of this
case practically does not know how to investigate into a
criminal case. It may also be the fact that like other cases the
Investigating Officer submitted charge sheet without any
investigation after making some table work. When it is
alleged that a minor girl of class-I was mercilessly beaten by
the petitioner, it was the primary duty of the Investigating
Officer to examine the victim girl, get her statement recorded
under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and
keep such statement in the case diary. In order to ascertain
the truth, it was the bounden duty of the Investigating Officer
to examine other students of Class-I of the said school. It is
his duty while investigating into the case to examine the
guardians of the wards of the school who allegedly saved the
victim from clutches of the petitioner. The Investigating
Officer has failed to discharge his duties. He failed to collect
any evidence against the petitioner. He failed to consider
that on the basis of hearsay evidence charge against the
accused person cannot the established.
11. The investigation of the instant case is a glaring
instance of dereliction of duty on the part of the Investigating
Officer.
12. Therefore, this Court proposes to departmental action
against S.I. Sanjay Naskar of Bizpur P.S.
13. Let a copy of this order be sent to the Commissioner
of Police, Barrackpore Police Commissionerate directing him
to initiate departmental proceeding immediately on receipt of
the copy of this order against S.I. Sanjay Naskar. The
Commissioner of Police is further directed to inform this Court
about the action taken by him against the above named
police officer within seven days from the date of receipt of
server copy of this order.
14. Learned P.P.-in-charge is directed to communicate
server copy of this order to the Commissioner of Police,
Barrackpore Police Commissionerate within three days from
the date of this order.
15. In view of the above discussion, the order dated 15 th
February, 2022 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, 1 st
Court at Barrackpore in G.R. Case No.7954 of 2019 is set
aside.
16. The learned Magistrate is directed to consider the
application under Section 239 of the Code of Criminal
Procedure filed by the petitioner in the light of the
observation made hereinabove to come to a finding as to
whether continuation of the proceeding will be an instance of
the abuse of the process of the Court or not.
17. With the above order, the instant revision is disposed
of.
18. However, to ensure specific action against the
Investigating Officer, the record of the instant revision be
listed under the heading "To Be Mentioned" on 19 th
September, 2022.
19. The parties are at liberty to act on the server copy of
this order.
(Bibek Chaudhuri, J.)
