- (1.) Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner. None is available for the State. Of course an adjournment was prayed for on behalf of the complainant/opposite-party. However, I reject such prayer for adjournment as the case is pending in this Court at motion stage since long.
(2.) By the petition the petitioners have challenged certain direction issued by the learned Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Calcutta, in Misc. Case No. C-4783 of 2001 directing the D.C., Lalbazar, to investigate the complaint of the complainant-opposite party under Section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure treating the said complaint as an F.I.R. and to submit compliance report.
(3.) The case, in short, is that the opposite - party complainant, Dr. Om Prakash Jaiswal, lodged the aforesaid complaint before the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate. Calcutta, praying inter alia that this complaint be forwarded to the policy for investigation. As per the said complaint the petitioners had committed offence under Sections 120-B/409, I.P.C. The learned Magistrate instead of taking cognizance in the matter passed an order under Sub-Section (3) of Section 156 of the Code directing the Deputy Commissioner, Detective Department, Lalbazar, Calcutta, to investigate the complaint of the complainant treating the same as an F.I.R. and to submit compliance report.;