Bibek Mondal vs The State Of West Bengal & Anr
2023 Latest Caselaw 703 Cal

Form J(1)        IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
                    Criminal Revisional Jurisdiction
                              Appellate Side
Present :
The Hon'ble Justice Bibek Chaudhuri

                        CRR 3430 of 2022
                          Bibek MOndal
                               Vs.
                 The State of West Bengal & Anr.

For the petitioner      : Mr. Sarthak Chowdhury, Adv.
                          Ms. Antara Das, Adv.

Heard on                : 24.01.2023

Judgment On             : 24.01.2023.


Bibek Chaudhuri, J.

In a proceeding under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal

Procedure pending before the learned Judicial Magistrate, 2 nd Court,

Chandernagore, the parties have filed affidavits of assets in terms of

the guideline of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Rajnesh Vs. Neha &

Anr. The learned Magistrate granted interim maintenance in favour of

the wife/opposite party on the basis of such affidavits of assets.

Subsequently, the husband/petitioner filed an application under

Section 340 of the Code of Criminal Procedure before the learned

Magistrate for initiating an enquiry alleging, inter alia, that the said

affidavits of assets contained false statements and forged documents.

The learned Magistrate rejected the application on the ground

that such application ought to be presented before the proper Court

so that the same can be dealt with as if instituted in a police report

and proceed with accordingly.

Prima facie the learned Magistrate failed to appreciate the

provision contained in Section 340 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

If an allegation referred to in clause (b) of Sub-section (1) of Section

195, is made in respect of a document produced or given in evidence

in a proceeding in the Court, such Court is under obligation to cause

preliminary enquiry and ;

(a) record a finding to that effect;

(b) make a complaint thereof in writing;

(c) send it to a Magistrate of the First Class having

jurisdiction;

(d) take sufficient security that the appearance of the accused

before such Magistrate, or if the alleged offence is non-

bailable and the Court thinks it necessary so to do, send

the accused in custody to such Magistrate;

(e) bind over any person to appear and give evidence before

such Magistrate.

The learned Magistrate did not hold any preliminary enquiry

before rejecting such application under Section 340 of the Code of

Criminal Procedure filed by the present petitioner.

In spite of such observation being made by this Court at the

initial stage, this Court cannot admit the instant revision on the

ground that any order passed under Section 340 of the Code of

Criminal Procedure is appealable under Section 341 of the Code of

Criminal Procedure. The petitioner is at liberty to file an appeal

against the impugned order before the competent Court of law subject

to the law of limitation.

The instant revision, is, therefore, dismissed.

(Bibek Chaudhuri, J.)

Mithun De/ A.R. (Ct).

Sl No.22.

D/L.