Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)
Pawan Kumar Agarwal vs State Of West Bengal & Anr on 29 April, 2015
Author: Subrata Talukdar
Bench: Subrata Talukdar
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA CRIMINAL REVISIONAL JURISDICTION APPELLATE SIDE PRESENT:
The Hon'ble Mr. Justice Subrata Talukdar CRR 1557 of 2013 + CRAN 1654 of 2015 with CRR 1556 of 2013 + CRAN 1653 of 2014 with CRR 2118 of 2013 + CRAN 1595 of 2014 with CRR 2116 of 2013 + CRAN 1593 of 2014 with CRR 2115 of 2013 + CRAN 1594 of 2014 Pawan Kumar Agarwal
-vs.-
State of West Bengal & Anr.
For the Petitioner : Mr. Ayan Bhattachryya
Mr. Amitaba Ray
Mr. Arijit Ghosh
For the Opposite Party2 : Mr. Tirthankar Ghosh
Mr. Kaushik Kundu
Mr. Satadru Lahiri
Heard on : 21.01.2015; 28.01.2015 & 04.02.2015
Judgement on : 29/04/2015
Subrata Talukdar, J.: A common point is involved for adjudication in this batch of applications and both the parties, i.e. petitioner and complainant-Opposite Party2 are common to each of the petitions. The common point of law is whether in a proceeding under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (for short NI Act) before the Ld. Magistrate, the provisions of Section 202 CrPC are required to be mandatorily complied with or not and the manner of such compliance in the event the accused person is shown to be resident of a place beyond the territorial jurisdiction of the Ld. Magistrate.
In this batch of petitions dishonour of cheque has been alleged against the petitioner-accused by the OP2-complainant in the discharge of a legally enforceable debt or liability and, admittedly the petitioner-accused was the Managing Director of the firm at the relevant point of time when the offence was allegedly committed having his office or place of business within the jurisdiction of the Ld. Magistrate at Kolkata. However, during the pendency of the proceeding the petitioner-accused claimed to be a resident of Ahmedabad in the State of Gujarat and therefore Ld. Counsel for the petitioner has invoked the provisions of Section 202 CrPC qua his client.
At the very outset Section 202 CrPC needs to be reproduced:-
"202. Postponement of issue of process.- (1) Any Magistrate, on receipt of a complaint of an offence of which he is authorised to take cognizance or which has been made over to him under section 192, may, if he thinks fit, and shall, in a case where the accused is residing at a place beyond the area in which he exercises his jurisdiction postpone the issue of process against the accused, and either inquire into the case himself or direct an investigation to be made by a police officer or by such other person as he thinks fit, for the purpose of deciding whether or not there is sufficient ground for proceeding:
Provided that no such direction for investigation shall be made,-
(a) where it appears to the Magistrate that the offence complained of is triable exclusively by the Court of Session; or
(b) where the complaint has not been made by a Court, unless the complainant and the witnesses present (if any) have been examined on oath under section 200. (2) In an inquiry under sub-section (1), the Magistrate may, if he thinks fit, take evidence of witnesses on oath:
Provided that if it appears to the Magistrate that the offence complained of is triable exclusively by the Court of Session, he shall call upon the complainant to produce all his witnesses and examine them on oath.
(3) If an investigation under sub-section (1) is made by a person not being a police officer, he shall have for that investigation all the powers conferred by this Code on an officer-in-charge of a police station, except the power to arrest without warrant."
Sri Ayan Bhattacharyya, Ld. Counsel for the petitioner makes the following submissions:-
a) The amendment to Section 202 CrPC as brought into effect from 23rd June, 2006 by the Code of Criminal Procedure (Amendment Act, 2005) (for short 2005 Amendment) has made it mandatory for the Ld. Court to comply with the provisions by making an inquiry himself or directing an investigation to be made by the police officer or by such other person as the Ld. Magistrate thinks fit prior to issuing process or taking cognizance. In view of the use of the word 'shall' (supra) introduced by the 2005 Amendment to Section 202 CrPC has a mandatory connotation and therefore to be compulsorily followed by the Ld. Magistrate in respect of any accused who is found to be residing outside and/or beyond the territorial jurisdiction of the Ld. Magistrate.
The scope of such inquiry under Section 202 CrPC makes it mandatory for the Ld. Magistrate to be satisfied whether a prima facie case has been made out against the accused person deserving issuance of process or, in the likelihood that the complaint has been filed only to harass the accused person the same could be dismissed under Section 203 CrPC.
b) Sri Bhattacharyya, Ld. Counsel strongly argues that such issue fell for decision before the Hon'ble Apex Court in National Bank of Oman vs. Barakara Abdul Aziz & Anr. reported in 2013 (2) SCC 488 wherein it was, inter alia, held that the investigation under Section 202 CrPC is different from the investigation envisaged under Section 156 CrPC. The scope of inquiry under Section 202 CrPc is only confined to enable the Ld. Magistrate to decide whether or not there are sufficient grounds to proceed against an accused in the event such accused is found to be a resident outside the territorial jurisdiction of the Ld. Magistrate. The limited purpose for the inquiry as stated above can be fulfilled on the basis of the material placed by the complainant before the Ld. Magistrate and is relevant for finding out whether there exists a prima facie case for issuance of process. The issue is to be decided purely from the point of view of the complainant without examining the scope of any defence that the accused may have at his disposal.
The view in National Bank of Oman (supra) was affirmed in Udai Shankar Awasthi vs. State of Uttar Pradesh reported in 2013 (2) SCC 435 and in Vijay Dhanuka Etc. vs. Najima Mamtoj Etc. reported in 2014 (4) Scale 413. In both the cases the emphasis of the Hon'ble Apex Court was to protect residents of places beyond the territorial jurisdiction of the Ld. Magistrate where the complaint is filed from vexatious proceedings and therefore avoidable harassment. Accordingly, Sri Bhattacharyya argues, the legislature has introduced the mandatory word 'shall' in Section 202 CrPC by the 2005 Amendment.
c) Ld. Counsel for the petitioner next points out that when the language of the statute as introduced by the 2005 Amendment is clear, resort to any other form of interpretation is unwarranted. In support of the above noted proposition Ld. Counsel relies upon the decisions in Keshavji Ravji and Com., M/s. vs. Commissioner of Income Tax reported in 1990 (2) SCC 231, Johnson vs. Moreton reported in 1978 (3) AII ER 37 (House of Lords), Duport Steels Limited vs. Sirs & Ors. reported in 1980 (1) AII ER 529 (QBD) and of the Supreme Court of USA in Connecticut National Bank vs. Thomas Germain reported in 503 US 249 (1992).
d) Relying on the golden rule of literal interpretation when the language employed by the legislature is unambiguous Sri Bhattacharyya submits that such golden rule of interpretation must be employed while reading the 2005 Amendment into the Section 202 CrPC provision. In support of such argument Ld. Counsel relies upon Union of India vs. Deoki Nandan Agarwal reported in 1992 Supp (1) SCC 323, Sri Jeyaram Educational Trust vs. A.G. Syed Mohideen reported in 2010 (2) SCC 513 and in Grid Corporation of Orissa Ltd. vs. Eastern Metals & Ferro Alloys reported in 2011 (11) SCC
334.
e) Any departure from the golden rule of interpretation directing a statutory provision to be construed in the manner as it is when the language is clear, shall result in judicial overreach. Such law was espoused in The Martin Burn Ltd. vs. The Calcutta Municipal Corporation reported in AIR 1966 SC 529 as well as in Popat Bahiru Govardhane vs. Special Land Acquisition Officer reported in 2013 (10) SCC 765.
Developing the above noted point further Sri Bhattacharyya submits that the plain language of the 2005 Amendment casts the duty upon the Court to interpret or to act in a particular manner.
In support of such proposition he relies upon a judgment of the Full Bench of the Punjab and Haryana High Court in Bhikam Bobla & Ors. vs. Punjab State & Ors. reported in AIR 1963 Punjab 255 as also in State of UP vs. Singhara Singh reported in AIR 1964 SC 358.
f) Pointing out to Section 465 CrPC whereby no finding or sentence by a competent Court shall be reversible by reason of error, omission or irregularity, Sri Bhattacharyya submits that such provisions of Section 465 cannot be employed to deal with the substantive right of an accused conferred under the 2005 Amendment of Section 202 CrPC. Pointing out that the 2005 Amendment being of a mandatory nature, Section 465 CrPC can only be of help in the event any judicial process is found to be in variance to a directory provision of law. According to Ld. Counsel, the support of Section 465 CrPC may not be obtained for breach of a mandatory provision even though such challenge is thrown at the very inception or initial stage. In this regard Ld. Counsel relies upon the pronouncement of the Hon'ble Apex Court in A. Devendran vs. State of Tamil Nadu reported in 1997 (11) SCC 720.
g) Reiterating the decision in National Back of Oman (supra) Sri Bhattacharyya, Ld. Counsel strenuously argues that after the 2005 Amendment there is no scope left for the Ld. Magistrate but to be satisfied on the basis of the inquiry that sufficient grounds are made out to proceed against the accused. In the absence of such compliance the very proceeding before the Ld. Magistrate shall stand vitiated. On the issue of the effect of non-compliance of a mandatory provision Ld. Counsel relies on the decision reported in Shariff-ud-Din vs. Abdul Gani Lone reported in 1980 (1) SCC 403, Rajesh Awasthi vs. Nand Lal Jaiswal reported in 2013 (1) SCC 501, ITC Bhadrachalam Paperboards vs. Mandal Revenue Officer A.P. reported in 1996 (6) SCC 634, Dr. Ram Deen Maurya vs. State of UP reported in 2009 (6) SCC 735, N. Radhakrishnan vs. M/s. Maestro Engineers reported in 2010 (1) SCC 72, Union of India vs. Shivendra Bikaram Singh reported in 2010 (1) SCC 72 and in Bharat Khandasari Udyog vs. Khandasari Inspector reported in 1992 Supp (2) SCC 473. Sri Bhattacharyya argues that in situations like the mandatory provision introduced under the 2005 Amendment, no issue of the test of prejudice can be introduced as a bar to its application.
h) Sri Bhattacharyya further submits that despite the above noted decision of law connected to interpretation of the effect of the 2005 Amendment on Section 202 CrPC, two Single Benches of this High Court in two different matters namely, In Re: M/s. Nishika Properties (Pvt. Ltd.) and In Re: Shyamal Kanti Goswami declared on 7th August, 2013 and 8th October, 2013 respectively arrived at divergent views with regard to the requirement of inquiry under Section 202 CrPC being mandatory or not.
In a batch of petitions before another Hon'ble Single Bench the above noted divergent views of two Hon'ble Single Benches in Nishika Properties and Shyamal Kumar Goswami (supra) came up for consideration. By judgment and order dated 11th June, 2014 the Hon'ble Single Bench referred the matter to an Hon'ble Special Bench by, inter alia, holding as follows:-
"............In view of the above discussion each case has to be examined on its own merit for coming to a definite finding as to whether the inquiry under Section 202 Cr. P. C. relating to an accused residing outside the territorial jurisdiction of the Magistrate was deemed to be made by the Court before issuance of process.
However, if I dispose of this matter finally with above observations then this will be another judgment of a Single Bench on these issues causing further complications. In that case this judgment will stand in between two extreme views taken in this regard by different Single Benches of this Court. In the case of M/s. Nishka Properties (P) Ltd. and another (supra) the Single Bench of this Court held that amended provisions of Section 202 Cr. P. C. requiring inquiry before an accused person residing outside the territorial jurisdiction of the learned Magistrate, was mandatory in nature and that its violation will made the order of issuance of process invalid. Whereas in the case of Shyamal kanti Goswami and another (supra) it was held that said amendment was rather directory in nature and that objection of said non-compliance should be raised at the earliest stage to demonstrate how any prejudice has caused or likely to cause to the accused causing failure of justice.
In order to resolve the dispute once for all I am of the opinion that it will be prudent to refer the matter to the Hon'ble the Chief Justice, Calcutta High Court for placing the matter before a Special Bench to decide the debatable issues arose in this connection. The Hon'ble Special Bench to be constituted by the Hon'ble the Chief Justice of Calcutta High Court may be requested to decide the following issues in the backdrop of the relevant provisions of law.
(1) Whether the amendment of Section 202 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 as enacted vide Section 19 of the Criminal Procedure (Amendment) Act, 2005 (25 of 2005) casts a mandatory duty upon the Magistrate to conduct an inquiry under Section 202 of the Code before issuing process under Section 204 of the Code qua an accused who resides outside the territorial limit of the Court of the said Magistrate?
(2) What will be the nature of such inquiry under Section 202 of the Code qua an accused who resides outside the territorial limit of the said Court?
(3) Whether non-compliance of such inquiry in terms of Section 202 (as amended vide Section 19 of the Criminal Procedure (Amendment) Act 2005 (25 of 2005) will invalidate or vitiate the order of process so issued? (4) Whether non-compliance of such inquiry in terms of Section 202 (as amended vide Section 19 of the Criminal Procedure (Amendment) Act 2005 (25 of 2005) can be raised only at the initial stage of the proceedings or after much deliberation as well?
(5) Whether the amendment of Section 202 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 as enacted vide Section 19 of the Criminal Procedure (Amendment) Act 2005 (25 of 2005) will apply in case of offences punishable under Section 138/141 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881?
Both sides referred some other judgments in support of their respective claims. As the Court has kept the matters pending till receipt of the verdict of the Special Bench to be constituted, I did not refer those judgments at this stage. Let these matters be adjourned sine die with liberty to the parties to pray for inclusion of the matters in the list of hearing with notice to the other sides, after delivery of the judgment by the Special Bench.
Let further proceedings of the cases qua the petitioners be stayed till further order."
i) Therefore, the culminating point of Sri Bhattacharyya's argument is that the issue in the present CRRs are fundamentally the same which have been referred to the Hon'ble Special Bench and should also be referred or, await the final outcome of the reference.
Sri Bhattacharyya further submits that the decision of the Hon'ble Single Bench in CRR 4158 of 2013 in the matter of Nirmal Khandelwal vs. M/s. Terai Dooars Tea Company Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. is patently perverse in law inasmuch as the scope of the 2005 Amendment as enforced by National Bank of Oman and other decisions (supra) have been nullified. Such order of the Hon'ble Single Bench besides being violative of judicial discipline is also against the established canons of interpretation.
Per contra, Sri Tirthankar Ghosh, Ld. Counsel for the OP2- complainant submits as follows:-
i. That there is no rule of thumb that pendency of other matters before an Hon'ble Special Bench or before a larger bench will denude the Hon'ble Bench presently in seisin of the matter from hearing the same. In support of the above noted point Sri Ghosh, Ld. Counsel relies upon the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in P. Sudhakar Rao & Ors. vs. U. Govinda Rao & Ors. reported in 2013 (8) SCC 693, Ashoke Sadarangani & Anr. vs. Union of India & Ors. reported in 2012 (11) SCC 321 and in Harbhajan Singh & Anr. vs. State of Punjab & Anr. reported in 2009 (13) SCC 608.
On the strength of the above noted decisions Sri Ghosh argues that although several other matters were referred to the Hon'ble Special Bench vide the judgment and order of the Hon'ble Single Bench dated 11th June, 2014, it does not ipso facto mean that the same treatment should be meted out to the present batch of petitions before this Court. Sri Ghosh strenuously argues that the present batch of petitions must be decided on their own facts.
ii. According to Ld. Counsel, in each of the CRRs there exist orders passed by an Hon'ble Single Bench of this Court directing the Ld. Magistrate to either pass a fresh summoning order after conducting the inquiry under Section 202 CrPC or alternatively directing the Ld. Magistrate to cause a police inquiry in compliance with Section 202 CrPC. Besides, under both the modes of inquiry to determine the prima facie involvement of the accused person, including the present petitioner. Ld. Counsel, Sri Ghosh argues that it is on record that the order of the Hon'ble Single Bench either directing magisterial inquiry or police inquiry in fulfilment of Section 202 CrPC were carried out and, in each of the cases being satisfied regarding the prima facie involvement of the petitioner-accused the Ld. Magistrate decided to issue fresh summons.
The fresh summons issued by the Ld. Magistrate were challenged in revision before the Ld. Chief Judge, City Sessions Court, Calcutta and, each of the revisional applications were dismissed by imposing of costs. Challenging such dismissal the petitioner has filed the present revisional applications. iii. Sri Ghosh therefore submits that in the facts of each of the present cases the road to implementation of Section 202 CrPC has been already traversed and the petitioner-accused, responding to the fresh summons, has entered appearance before the Ld. Magistrate and also made an application under Section 205 CrPC to be represented through Ld. Counsel. In the above view of the matter there is no scope now for the petitioner- accused to turn around and contend that there has been non- fulfilment of the provisions of Section 202 CrPC.
Sri Ghosh points out that the Ld. Revisionist Court relying on Shivjee Singh vs. Nagendra Tiwary & Ors. reported in AIR 2010 SC 2261 and in Subhromonium Sethoraman vs. State of Maharashtra & Anr. reported in 2005 SC (Cri) 242 had rightly held that in view of having entered his appearance before the Ld. Magistrate the petitioner-accused cannot now complain of any prejudice on the plank of non-compliance of Section 202 CrPC.
Ld. Counsel, Sri Ghosh further points out that the petitioner was admittedly the Managing Director of the firm, M/s. Fair Deal Supply Ltd. and had his office within the jurisdiction of the Ld. Magistrate's Court. As Managing Director of the firm which defaulted in the payment of cheques, the pivotal role played by him in the business transaction with the OP1-complainant as well as the description of his official address falling within the jurisdiction of the Ld. Magistrate has been clearly furnished in the complaint. The petitioner is only trying to buy time by filing the present revisional application. No indulgence in whatever manner can be granted to the petitioner after he has entered appearance before the Ld. Magistrate and also sought to be represented under Section 205 CrPC.
Having heard the parties and considering the materials on record this Court notices that in National Bank of Oman (supra) the Hon'ble Apex Court had delineated the scope of the inquiry under Section 202 CrPC. It was, inter alia, held as follows:-
"9. The duty of a Magistrate receiving a complaint is set out in Section 202 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and there is an obligation on the Magistrate to find out if there is any matter which calls for investigation by a criminal court. The scope of enquiry under this Section is restricted only to find out the truth or otherwise of the allegations made in the complaint in order to determine whether process has to be issued or not. Investigation under Section 202 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is different from the investigation contemplated in Section 156 as it is only for holding the Magistrate to decide whether or not there is sufficient grounds for him to proceed further. The scope of enquiry under Section 202 of the Code of Criminal procedure is, therefore, limited to the ascertainment of truth or falsehood of the allegations made in the complaint-
(i) on the materials placed by the complainant before the Court
(ii) for the limited purpose of finding out whether a prima facie case for issue of process has been made our; and
(iii) for deciding the question purely from the point of view of the complainant without at all adverting to any defence that the accused may have."
At the same time this Court notices that in all the pending CRRs orders were passed by an Hon'ble Single Bench directing the Ld. Magistrate to pass fresh summoning order upon conducting an inquiry either himself under Section 202 CrPC or, through the police inquiry. In CRRs 1556 of 2013 and 1557 of 2013 an Hon'ble Single Bench was pleased to direct by order dated 14th May, 2012 the Ld. Magistrate to pass a fresh summoning order within one month from the date of the order after conducting an inquiry himself.
The Ld. Magistrate in compliance with the order of the Hon'ble Single Bench dated 14th May, 2012 was pleased to hold on 18 September, 2012 that upon affidavit-in-chief of the complainant, the witness as well as the petition of complaint that an inquiry under Section 202 CrPC has been held from which it emerges that there exists a prima facie case against the accused persons under Sections 138/141 NI Act. It is further revealed from the records that summons have already been served on the accused persons and date fixed for their appearance.
Such order of the Ld. Magistrate in compliance with the order of the Hon'ble Single Bench was carried in revision by the present petitioner and, the Ld. Revisionist Court found as follows:-
"The facts and circumstances of this case show that the accused was not at all prejudiced by the impugned order as he very much appear before the Ld. Trial Court and prayed for his representation under Section 205 CrPC and as such he was not prejudiced. The decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Shivjee Singh Case will squarely apply."
In Shivjee Singh vs. Nagendra Tiwary & Ors. reported in AIR 2010 SC 2261 the Hon'ble Apex Court held that a procedural violation which does not result in denial of fair hearing or prejudice to the parties must be treated to be directory. Accordingly, the Ld. Revisionist Court dismissed the revisional application.
This Court is of the opinion that although at the first flush the judgment and order of the Hon'ble Single Bench dated 11th June, 2014 in CRR 1600 of 2013 and other connected matters heavily relied upon by Sri Bhattacharyya for referring the matter to the Hon'ble Special Bench may look attractive particularly having regard to issue no.2 of the reference as to the nature of the inquiry under Section 202 CrPC, at the same time this Court cannot put the clock back when such inquiry under Section 202 CrPC has been directed to be held by an Hon'ble Single Bench and admittedly on the basis of such direction the Ld. Magistrate has either conducted the inquiry himself or the inquiry has been conducted through the police .
It has not been brought to the notice of this Court whether the order of the Hon'ble Single Bench was challenged by the petitioner. On the contrary it transpires from the records that the inquiry was held by the Ld. Magistrate as directed by this Hon'ble Court both by himself and through the agency of the police. On completion of the inquiry the Ld. Magistrate did come to a prima facie conclusion of sufficiency of materials to proceed against the petitioner-accused. Additionally, the petitioner-accused responded to the summons and appeared before the Ld. Magistrate praying for exemption under Section 205 CrPC.
Therefore, to the mind of this Court the scope of inquiry under Section 202 CrPC for the limited purpose to ascertain the truth appears to have been satisfied from the exercise conducted by the Ld. Magistrate in compliance with the order of the Hon'ble Single Bench (supra). It also appears to the mind of this Court that the tests of such inquiry as laid down in National Bank of Oman (supra) being based on finding out a prima facie case from the point of view of the complainant on the materials placed by the complainant appear to have been satisfied. This Court is also informed that summons was served upon the petitioner and received at his official address within the jurisdiction of this Court.
The case therefore has progressed further having regard to the conduct to the petitioner. The petitioner has accepted notice, entered appearance and also filed an application under Section 205 CrPC. Now under acute legal advice the petitioner seeks to take benefit the special reference made by the Hon'ble Single Bench vide the order dated 11th June, 2014.
To the mind of this Court the essential tests as specified in National Bank of Oman (supra) which require to be fulfilled in any inquiry under Section 202 CrPC have been fulfilled pursuant to the order of the Hon'ble Single Bench on which consequential steps have been taken by the Ld. Magistrate and therefore have attained finality. Therefore, at this stage to concur with Sri Bhattacharyya and to agree to a reference before the Hon'ble Special Bench is not a course to be adopted. In this connection this Court is inclined to take notice of the judgments relied upon by Ld. Counsel for the Opposite Party No.1- complainant in the matters of P. Sudhakar Rao & Ors., Ashok Sadarangani & Anr. and Harbhajan Singh & Anr. (supra).
Therefore this Court is of the considered opinion that the mandatory nature of Section 202 CrPC as strenuously argued by Sri Bhattacharyya have been already complied with by the Ld. Magistrate by holding an inquiry either by himself or through the police as directed by an Hon'ble Single Bench and pursuant to such inquiry under Section 202 CrPc the petitioner entered appearance before the Ld. Magistrate and filed his application for being represented under Section 205 CrPC. It cannot be therefore said at this stage that the petitioner has an implied right of reference to the Hon'ble Special Bench.
This Court notices that the CRRs appear in two categories - in cases were the Hon'ble Single Bench directed magisterial inquiry, i.e. CRR 1556 and 1557 of 2013. In the remaining CRRs before this Court i.e. CRR 2115 of 2013, CRR 2116 of 2013 and CRR 2118 of 2013 by order of the same date i.e. 4th September, 2012 the Hon'ble Single Bench was pleased to issue necessary directions upon the Ld. Magistrate for conducting inquiry under Section 202 CrPC. The officer-in-charge, Hare Street Police Station was directed to conduct the inquiry vide order dated 23rd November, 2012 and the police submitted its report on 10th December, 2012. Accordingly, fresh summons were issued on 11th December, 2011 in which the petitioner by virtue of his post as Managing Director became prima facie liable.
Such order of the Ld. Magistrate expressing satisfaction with regard to the issuance of process against the petitioner on the basis of the police report became the subject matter of challenge in CRRs 2115 of 2013, 2116 of 2013 and 2118 of 2013. On a parity of reasoning this Court finds that in both groups of CRRs between the same parties i.e. CRR 1556 of 2013, CRR 1557 of 2013 and CRR 2115 of 2013, CRR 2116 of 2013 and CRR 2118 of 2013 the inquiry under Section 202 CrPC has been conducted on the basis of a direction by an Hon'ble Single Bench which has attained finality and been taken to its logical conclusion by the Ld. Magistrate applying Section 202 CrPC.
Therefore, having regard to the abovenoted factual scenario and expressing satisfaction that the essential parameters of holding the inquiry under Section 202 CrPC as laid down in National Bank of Oman (supra) have been fulfilled, this Court is unable to accede on the facts of this case to the prayer made by Sri Bhattacharyya for referring the matter to the Hon'ble Special Bench.
For the above reasons no interference is called for in the orders impugned. CRR 1556 of 2013, CRR 1557 of 2013 and CRR 2115 of 2013, CRR 2116 of 2013 and CRR 2118 of 2013 stand dismissed. All other connected applications stand accordingly disposed of.
There will be, however, no order as to costs.
Urgent certified photocopies of this judgement, if applied for, be given to the learned advocates for the parties upon compliance of all formalities.
(Subrata Talukdar, J.)