Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)
Manindra Nath Chowdhur vs Unknown on 9 February, 2012
Author: Kanchan Chakraborty
Bench: Kanchan Chakraborty
1
49.
09. 02.2012 m.b C.R.R. 2886 of 2010 In Re.: An application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.
And In the matter of: Manindra Nath Chowdhur..........petitioner Mr. Subir Ranjan Ghosh....................for the petitioner Mr. Subir Ganguly ............................for the O.P. no. 2 Mr. Binoy Kumar Punda ....................for the State of W.B. The challenge in this revisional application is the order dated 18.08.2012 passed by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sealdah in Beniapukur Police Station Case No. 373 dated 20.10.2001 under Sections 120B/420/467/471/468 of the Indian Penal Code and also for quashing of the entire proceeding mainly on the ground that after receiving F.R.T. from the investigating agency, the learned Magistrate should not have ordered further investigation of the case and submit fresh report under Section 173 of the Code.
One Ashok Kumar Chowdhury died intestate on 31.12.1996 leaving behind him, as many as 10 legal heirs. After the death of Ashok Kumar Chowdhury, his legal heirs got their names mutated 2 in respect of the properties left by him. Subsequently, one Will was discovered wherefrom it was found that the deceased, Ashok Kumar Chowdhury, in fact, bequeathed his properties amongst his legal heirs specifically. A probate of the said Will was sought for in a probate proceeding. Manabendra Nath Chowdhury, one of the sons of Ashok Kumar Chowdhury, who is opposite party no. 2 herein, has been contesting that probate proceedings, which is still pending. In the meantime, Manabendra Nath Chowdhury, initiated a criminal proceeding against Manindra Nath Chowdhury, another legal heir of Ashok Kumar Chowdhury, under Sections 120B/ 420/ 467/ 471/ 468 of the Indian Penal Code alleging therein that the petitioner herein, Manindra Nath Chowdhury, by using forged signature got his and other names mutated in respect of the property left by Ashok Kumar Chowdhury and that, he prepared and manufactured false documents for that purpose for his wrongful gain. The learned Magistrate referred the matter to the local police station for further investigation under Section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Matter was investigated into and F.R.T. was filed. Thereafter, the learned Magistrate accepted the same without giving the defacto-complainant any opportunity to file Naraji petition. After that several revisional applications in the High Court were filed and several orders were passed by the learned Magistrate. In all, on two occasions, matter 3 was investigated into and ended in F.R.T. Further, on the last occasion, the opposite party herein, Manabendra Nath Chowdhury, filed another Naraji petition and the learned Court accepted the same and directed for further investigation. Manindra Nath Chowdhury, being aggrieved, has come up with this application challenging the legality, validity and propriety of the same.
I have carefully gone through the orders passed by the learned Trial Court from the very inception and the orders passed by this Court in various revisional applications. It is true that matter has been dragged on for quite a long period and persons involved are full-brothers fighting against each other for the property left by their father. It is also true that a probate proceeding is pending in the Court of the learned Probate Court wherein the opposite party no. 2 herein is contesting as a defendant.
Heard Mr. Ghosh, learned advocate for the petitioner, Mr. Ganguly, learned advocate for the opposite party no. 2 and Mr. Punda, learned advocate for the State of West Bengal. Perused the order impugned. Apparently, there is no illegality, infirmity and impropriety in the order impugned. The learned Magistrate is not bound to accept report of the Investigating Officer if it appears to it that matters requires fresh investigation. The order impugned 4 shows clearly that the learned Magistrate applied his mind. In one occasion, the learned Magistrate also observed the same thing but again one F.R.T. was filed. This time, the learned Magistrate wanted to get the matter investigated afresh by another Investigating Officer. I reiterate that there is no illegality, impropriety and incorrectness in the order impugned necessiciating interference of this Court. Accordingly, the prayer for setting aside the order impugned is rejected.
I have carefully gone through the petition of complaint, which was referred to the local police station under Section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The allegations and aspersions put forth therein altogether, even if taken on their face value uncontroverted, makes out a cognizable case against the petitioner herein. It is not a case filed by any frustrated litigant out of grudge. It has not been filed with mal-intention. That being the fact, the proceeding cannot also be quashed.
With the directions above, this revisional application is dismissed.
In the facts of the case, there will, however, be no order as to costs.
Interim order of stay, if any, stands vacated. 5 The learned Trial Court is directed to proceed with the matter without delay and take a fresh decision after having report under Section 173 of the Code from the Investigating Officer.
Mr. Ghosh, learned advocate for the petitioner and Mr. Ganguly, learned advocate for the opposite party no. 2, contend that since the dispute is between the two brothers for the property left by their father, there is a possibility of settlement of the dispute amicably. This Court welcomes their gesture and directs them to make their best endeavour to get the matter settled outside the Court as early as possible.
Let urgent photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for, be given to the learned advocate for the parties upon compliance of necessary formalities.
(Kanchan Chakraborty, J.)