KALIDAS MUKHERJEE, J. - (1.) THIS is an application under Section 482 read with Section 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure praying for quashing of the proceedings arising out of Thakurpukur Police Station Case No. 303/2007 dated 07.10.2007 under Section 419/465/468/469/471 of the Indian Penal Code pending before the Learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Alipore.
(2.) THE prosecution case, in short, is that the petitioner herein appeared in the CAT Examination 2007. It has been alleged that the petitioner and some other accused persons filled up several application forms wherein some anomalies were detected. It is alleged that the following discrepancies have been detected ;- "1.Application Forms with different names and addresses but with same photographs. 2.Application Forms by the same candidate with different addresses. Some of the addresses are matching with the addresses of the candidates who have used same photographs for different names. 3.Similar hand writing and signatures of different candidates. 4.Signatures in capital letters of some of the candidates. 5.Some of the candidates have sent as many as five or six applications with different addresses. 6.Identical mark sheets and certificates including the same subject wise marks of some of the candidates. 7.THE addresses mostly are Punjab, Haryana and New Delhi. THE most common address C-25, Vijay Mandal Enclave, Near IIT Flyover, New Delhi " 110 016." In view of such discrepancies the FIR was lodged under Section 419, 465,468,469 & 471 IPC. After completion of investigation the charge-sheet was submitted against two accused persons including the petitioner herein with a prayer for discharge in respect of one accused person out of total number of 39 accused persons. In respect of other accused persons, the charge-sheet was silent and the de facto complainant filed a Naraji petition. The Learned Magistrate after hearing the parties allowed the Naraji petition directing further investigation in respect of other accused persons for whom there was no mention in the charge-sheet. The Learned Magistrate vide order dated 10.07.09 observed that the Case Diary did not disclose as to what type of investigation had been conducted by the I. O. against the remaining FIR named accused persons who had neither been charge-sheeted nor mentioned to be discharged from the case. It has also been recorded by the Learned Magistrate that no reason was assigned by the I.O. as to what prevented him in the matter of proceeding in respect of those other accused persons. The Learned Magistrate directed the O.C. Thakurpukur PS for deputing a competent officer other than earlier I.O. to conduct further investigation in terms of Section 173(8) Cr. P.C.
(3.) IT is contended by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner that the petitioner filed four application forms with same photographs, but with different addresses with the object that he would appear at the centre of his choice according to his convenience. IT is contended that excepting the filing of different addresses in those application forms, there is nothing to show any dishonest act or intention on the part of the accused petitioner. IT is contended that as per printed written instructions, more than one application form could be filed in case there was any mistake. The learned counsel contends that the total number of accused was 39 and the I.O. submitted charge-sheet in respect of two accused with a prayer for discharge in respect of another accused, but, the I.O. did not mention anything about the rest of the accused persons for whom the Learned Magistrate directed further investigation.;