Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)
(S. Banerjee) vs The State Of West Bengal & Anr on 7 May, 2024
Author: Tirthankar Ghosh
Bench: Tirthankar Ghosh
Court No. 34
CRR 3139 of 2023
07.05.2024
(AD 24) Susmita Bhattacharjee (Mukherjee) (S. Banerjee) Vs. The State of West Bengal & Anr.
CRAN 1 of 2023 CRAN 2 of 2023 CRAN 3 of 2024 Mr. Kumar Jyoti Tewari Mr. Manas Kumar Das Mr. Aritar Kumar Thokdar Mr. Aniruddha Tewari Mr. Amrit Sinha ... for the petitioner Mr. Tanmoy Kumar Ghosh Mr. S. Das ... for the State Report submitted by the State, be kept with the record.
The present revisional application has been preferred challenging the order dated 31.07.2023 passed by the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge, FTC (2 nd Court), Raiganj, Uttar Dinajpur in Criminal Revision No. 23 of 2022 whereby and whereunder the order dated 23.08.2022, passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Raiganj in Raiganj Women PS Case No. 165 of 2021 dated 08.09.2021, was set aside by the revisional court.
The background of the case, in brief, is to the extent that the investigating authority of Raiganj Women Police Station Case No. 165 of 2021, on conclusion of 2 investigation submitted a charge-sheet under Section 498(A)/307/406/34 of the Indian Penal Code read with Section 3-4 of the D.P.Act. The accused/opposite party before this court preferred an application under Section 173(8) Cr.P.C. on issues relating to CDR, tower location and CCTV footage. The said prayer was turned down by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Raiganj. The revisional application, being Criminal Revision 23 of 2022 was preferred before the learned Sessions Judge, Uttar Dinajpur which was subsequently referred to the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge, FTC (2nd Court), Raiganj, Uttar Dinajpur. The learned revisional court set aside the order dated 23.08.2022 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Raiganj, Uttar Dinajpur and allowed further investigation under Section 173(8) Cr.P.C. consequently allowing Criminal Revision 23 of 2022.
Being aggrieved by the said order passed by the revisional court, the de facto complainant/petitioner has approached this court on one of the main contentions that the accused has no right to prefer further investigation under Section 173(8) Cr.P.C. There are circumstances when the High Court in exercise of its inherent power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. and the Hon'ble Supreme Court while exercise its power under Article 136 of the Constitution of India, passes directions for ends of justice. The same cannot be 3 equated with the statutory powers available under Section 173(8) Cr.P.C. The manner in which an investigation is to be carried out is in the exclusive domain of the investigating agency. Neither the de facto complainant nor the accused can lead a pathway for the mode and manner in which the investigation is to be carried out. Consequently, I do find that the issue so canvassed by the petitioner do have force and calls for interference with the order passed by the learned Sessions Judge.
Accordingly, the order dated 31st July, 2023 passed in Criminal Revision 23 of 2022 is set aside. However, as the report reflects that the tower location and the CDR have been collected, the accused may have his right to obtain the same after a proper application is taken out before the jurisdictional trial court. So far as the CCTV footage is concerned, the same CCTV footage is of the own house of the accused where the original incident took place which has been disputed by the accused. To that extent the court in seisin of the matter may direct the officer in charge, without disturbing the investigating officer, to collect the recording, if the same are available. The same may be kept with the record and a copy of the pendrive may be made available to both the prosecution and the defence/accused which can be used at the stage of cross- examination and the subsequent stage of the proceeding. 4
So far as the merits of the case is concerned, at the stage of consideration of the charges, the learned trial court would be at liberty to assess the materials collected by the investigating agency and adhere to the applicability of the sections for which the accused has been implicated in connection with the instant case. If an application for discharge is preferred, the learned trial court will dispose of the same in accordance with law without being influenced by any observation made by this court while disposing of the present revisional application.
With the aforesaid observation, CRR 3139 of 2023 is partly allowed.
Connected application(s), if any, is/are consequently disposed of.
All concerned are to act in terms of a copy of this order duly downloaded from the official website of this court.
(Tirthankar Ghosh, J.)