Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)
Sukdeb Mondal vs Mahendra Mishra & Ors on 12 November, 2008
Author: Ashim Kumar Roy
Bench: Ashim Kumar Roy
Form No. J (1) IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA Criminal Revisional Jurisdiction Appellate Side Present:
The Hon'ble Justice Ashim Kumar Roy C.R.R. NO. 3393 of 2008 Sukdeb Mondal Versus Mahendra Mishra & Ors.
For Petitioner : Mr. Subrata Chandra Polle
Mr. Utpal Basu Mallick
Heard On : September 18th, 2008.
Judgment On : 12-11-2008.
In the instant criminal revisional application the petitioner challenged an order whereby the Learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sealdah, rejected his prayer for referring his complaint under Section 156 (3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure for police investigation and taking of cognizance thereupon.
2. Heard the learned advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioner. Perused the petition of complaint as well as the impugned order.
3. The provisions of Section 156 (3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure enables a Magistrate to refer a complaint disclosing commission of cognizable offences made before police for investigation, even when the Learned Magistrate is empowered to take cognizance thereupon thereupon under Section 190 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, if the facts and circumstances of such case calling for a police investigation. The decision as regards to the same entirely based on exercise of sound judicial discretion by the Court. The complainant has neither any choice nor can insist a court to take recourse to such an action unless the materials on record justify the same. The court must not act mechanically and as a matter of routine in referring a complaint to the police under Section 156 (3) of the Code merely because the complainant prays for the same.
4. Having gone through the entire allegations made in the complaint I do not find that the order impugned suffers from any illegality or infirmity. According to the complainant he is the lawful tenant of a garage situated at the premises No. 263, A.P.C. Road, Kolkata - 6, and after purchase of the said plot of land the accuseds all through tried to disturb his peaceful possession thereof. Although the accused persons have been injuncted by an order passed in connection with the Title Suit No. 293 of 2001 by the Learned Civil Judge, Junior Division, First Court, Sealdah from creating any disturbance to the complainant in his peaceful enjoyment of the possession of the said tenanted portion still then on May 22, 2008 and on May 31, 2008 the accused persons being accompanied by other miscreants forcibly entered into the premises in question and under the threat of dire consequences demolished two walls and as the complainant tried to resist them he was filthily abuse. It is the case of the complainant in such circumstances the accused persons have committed offences punishable under Sections 447/448/453/504/507/120B of the Indian Penal Code. It appears in the petition of complaint, the complainant has disclosed the identity of all the accused persons and his witnesses in whose presence such alleged incident happened.
5. Having regards to the materials on record and the facts and circumstances of the case the Learned Magistrate very rightly rejected their prayer for referring the complaint to the police for investigation under Section 156 (3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. No case has been made out calling for a police investigation.
This criminal revision has no merit and stands dismissed. Urgent xerox certified copy of this judgment, if applied for, be given to the parties, as expeditiously as possible.
( Ashim Kumar Roy, J. )