Research › Search › Judgment

Calcutta High Court · body

2020 DIGILAW 177 (CAL)

Chaya Rani Mondal v. Shri Shayamal Bhowmick

2020-02-10

MANOJIT MANDAL

body2020
JUDGMENT Manojit Mandal, J. - This application is directed against the impugned order dated 02/12/2019 passed by the Learned Chief Judicial Magistrate at Mayabunder in connection with Criminal Misc. Case No. 45 of 2019 thereby Learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Mayabunder was pleased to reject the application under Section 156(3) of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. 2. Being aggrieved by the said order of rejection, the petitioner has preferred this criminal revisional application on the ground that rejection order passed by the Learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Mayabunder is bad in law and Learned Court below committed gross illegality/irregularity/error while passing the impugned order and it should be set aside by this Court in the interest of justice. Points for consideration Is the order dated 02/12/2019 passed by the Learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Mayabunder justified? Decision for reasons 3. Learned Advocate appearing for the petitioner submitted that the learned Court below ought to have allowed the application under Section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure directing the Police to register the same as F.I.R. was not only mandatory in nature but also independent in its application. He further submitted that learned Court below did not consider the documents and report enclosed with the petition under Section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. He further submitted that learned Court below has illegally come to the conclusion that there is no good ground to send the petition to the Station House Officer, Diglipur Police Station for investigation of the complaint. So, he prayed for setting aside the order dated 02/12/2019 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Mayabunder. On the other hand, learned Advocates appearing for the respondents submitted that the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, who reject the application under Section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure is quite justified and it should not be set aside by this Court. 4. Upon hearing both the sides and on perusal of the record and the ground of revisional application, I find that the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate has been pleased to reject the prayer under Section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure as he did not find any good ground for directing the concerned Station House Officer, Diglipur to investigate the matter on perusal of the application and the documents annexed. It does not appear from the impugned order as to which documents were perused by the learned Magistrate and why such documents and petition of complaint failed to inspire the confidence of the learned Magistrate for which he opined that there is no good ground for further proceeding. 5. In the case of Victoria Memorial Hall v. Howrah Ganatantrik Nagrik Samiti reported in (2010) 3 SCC 732 , the Honble Apex Court has been pleased to observe that recording of reason is the heartbeat of every conclusion and it introduces clarity in an order and without the same, it becomes lifeless. Recording of reasons is a principle of natural justice and every judicial order must be supported by reasons recorded in writing. Recording of reasons ensured transparency and fairness in decision making and the person who is adversely affected comes to know as to why his application has been rejected. Now from the order impugned it is not clear as to why the application was rejected as the learned Magistrate failed to state why he found no good ground to direct the Station House Officer to investigate the matter. The learned Magistrate has stated in his order that he perused the application and the documents but he should have mentioned as to why the application and such documents did not appear to be sufficient for investigating the matter. As such, it appears that the order of the learned Magistrate lacks clarity and the same has not disclosed the reason for the conclusion reached by Magistrate. 6. In case of Priyanka Srivastava v. State of Uttar Pradesh reported in (2015) 6 SCC 287 , the Honble Apex Court has been pleased to formulate the guidelines for treating the application under Section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. It does not appear that the learned Magistrate has considered the guideline so framed by the Apex Court while passing the order under challenged. 7. So, it appears that it will be proper to direct the learned Magistrate to consider the application afresh without being influenced by the order impugned and this order and to pass a reasoned order. 8. It must be noted here that this Court has not gone into the merits of the application under Section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. As such, the order impugned is hereby set aside. 9. 8. It must be noted here that this Court has not gone into the merits of the application under Section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. As such, the order impugned is hereby set aside. 9. The learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Mayabunder is directed to consider the application afresh and to pass a reasoned order in terms of observation as made in this order as early as possible and preferably within a period of two months from the date of the communication of this order. The application, thus, stands disposed of. 10. Let a copy of this judgment be sent down to the Court below for information and taking necessary action. Urgent certified copy of this order, if applied for, be supplied to the parties upon compliance of usual formalities.