Research › Search › Judgment

Calcutta High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 711 (CAL)

Sir Biswanath Dolui v. STATE OF WEST BENGAL

2012-08-02

DIPAK SAHA RAY

body2012
Judgment Dipak Saha Ray, J. The present case arises out of an application under Section 397/401/482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. It is directed against the order dt. 30.05.2011 passed by the Ld. Judicial Magistrate, 1st class, Amta, Howrah in complaint case No. 56C of 2011 dismissing the complaint under Section 203 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The relevant facts of the present case are, in a nutshell, as follows: The petitioner herein filed a complaint alleging inter alia therein that the accused persons being armed with lathi, bamboos etc. assaulted the complainant and the members of his family. And accordingly he lodged general diary with the Amta Police Station on 11.11.2010 and thereafter they got themselves treated medically by the doctor of Amta Rural Hospital. Subsequently, on 15.11.2010 the complainant filed complaint before the Ld. Judicial Magistrate, Amta, Howrah, which was registered as complaint case No. 56C of 2010. The Ld. Magistrate on receiving the said complaint took cognizance of the offence and examined the witnesses as per the provisions of Section 200 Code of Criminal Procedure. Being not satisfied with the initial evidence of the witnesses, the Ld. Magistrate asked the Officer-in-Charge, Amta Police Station to submit report under the provision of Section 202 Code of Criminal Procedure. The concerned officer-in-charge in compliance with the said order of the Court, enquired into the matter and submitted report. After going through the said police report, the Ld. Magistrate dismissed the complaint as per the provision of Section 203 of the Code of Criminal Procedure without considering the prayer of the complainant for further enquiry into the matter by other competent authority. Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the said order of the Ld. Magistrate, the complainant/the petitioner herein has preferred this revisional application for setting aside the said impugned order dt. 22.10.2011 passed in complaint case No. 56C of 2010. The case of the petitioner, in short, is that the Officer-in-Charge Amta Police Station without making any enquiry at the spot prepared the report at police station and for that reason the matter is required to be enquired into by senior police official or by any other authority. 22.10.2011 passed in complaint case No. 56C of 2010. The case of the petitioner, in short, is that the Officer-in-Charge Amta Police Station without making any enquiry at the spot prepared the report at police station and for that reason the matter is required to be enquired into by senior police official or by any other authority. Now on careful perusal of the record of this case it appears that a petition was filed on behalf of the petitioner herein for further investigation of the case by another superior police officer or any other authority; but the Ld. Magistrate after considering the facts and circumstances of the case, rejected the said prayer of the complainant and dismissed the complaint. In the instant case there is no controversy that the Ld. Magistrate was not satisfied with the evidence of the witnesses recorded at the time of enquiry under Section 200 Code of Criminal Procedure and accordingly, he directed the Officer-in-Charge Amta P.S. for further enquiry into the matter and to submit the report. There is also no controversy that on the basis of the said direction Officer-in-Charge. Amta P.S. submitted report under Section 202 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. There does not appear to be any controversy that on receiving the report of the concerned Officer-in-Charge, the Ld. Magistrate dismissed the case under Section 203 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The controversy mainly relates to the question as to whether there is any illegality or any inherent impropriety or any material irregularity in the impugned order. Admittedly, the Ld. Magistrate after receiving the complaint took cognizance of the offences and enquired into the matter under the provisions of Section 200 Code of Criminal Procedure by examining witnesses on solemn affirmation. But as the said evidence was not satisfactory for issuance of process, the Ld. Magistrate asked the Officer-in-Charge, Amta P.S. for making investigation of the case under Section 202 Code of Criminal Procedure. Subsequently, after receiving the report of the concerned Officer-in-Charge, the Ld. Magistrate being satisfied with that report, dismissed the complaint under Section 203 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. So it is evident that the Ld. Magistrate during enquiry into the matter followed all the procedures as provided under the Act andthere were no procedural lacunae in arriving at the decision of the Ld. Magistrate being satisfied with that report, dismissed the complaint under Section 203 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. So it is evident that the Ld. Magistrate during enquiry into the matter followed all the procedures as provided under the Act andthere were no procedural lacunae in arriving at the decision of the Ld. Magistrate to dismiss the complaint under Section 203 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. In this context it is desirable to point out that it is the subjective satisfaction of the Ld. Magistrate as to whether or not the report of the Police Officer submitted under the provision of 202 Code of Criminal Procedure is accepted. In view of the matter, the impugned order does not suffer from any illegality or impropriety or material irregularities. The instant application therefore being devoid of merit, is liable to the dismissed. Accordingly the instant application filed Under Section 397/401/ 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, fails. CRR No. 1827 is dismissed and in the nature and background of the case without cost. The impugned order dt. 30.5.2011 passed by the Ld. Judicial Magistrate, 1st class, Amta, Howrah in complaint case No. 56C of 2011 is hereby affirmed.