R.K.BAG, J. - (1.) THIS criminal revision is preferred by the petitioner against the order dated 10.09.2013 passed by the Learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Alipore in A.C.G.R. Case No. 11618/2012 arising out of Jadavpur P. S. Case No.697 of 2010 under Sections 409/420/506 of the Indian Penal Code.
(2.) IT is submitted on behalf of the petitioner that the petitioner is residing at Houston, U. S. A. and he is associated with number of projects involving various N. G. O.s of various countries including India and Bangladesh. The petitioner came in contact with the respondent no.2 in connection with his work during his visit to India. The respondent no.2 proposed the petitioner for analysis of ground water of a piece of land which he said to have purchased at Sonarpur and in that connection the respondent no.2 gave the proposal to petitioner for purchase of land adjoining the land of the respondent no.2. The petitioner paid the respondent no.2 Rs. 7,62,000/ - in cash and also in draft through his relatives in four instalments, but the respondent no.2 refused to take any step for transfer of the said land in favour of the petitioner by execution and registration of the deed. Ultimately the petitioner had to file the instant criminal case against the respondent no.2. The police officer of Jadavpur Police Station took up the investigation of the said case and on completion of investigation submitted final report under Section 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure on 30 -09 -2012. The petitioner raised objection before the Learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Alipore against the manner and conduct of the investigation of the case and opposed the prayer of the investigating agency for acceptance of the final report. However, Learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Alipore accepted the final report submitted by the investigating officer by passing order dated 10 -09 -2013 which has been challenged by the petitioner before this court. Mr. Avishek Sinha, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the investigating officer did not interrogate the petitioner and did not collect the vital documents from the petitioner in respect of the transaction in question. According to Mr. Sinha, the investigating officer formed opinion that the dispute between the petitioner and the respondent no.2 is civil in nature without considering the essential documents and the facts involved in the transaction between the petitioner and the respondent no.2. Mr. Sinha further submits that the Learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Alipore failed to exercise the jurisdiction conferred on him by law by accepting the final report submitted by the investigating officer and by not giving the direction to the investigating agency to investigate the case de novo on the basis of the objection raised by the petitioner before the Learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate.
(3.) ON the other hand, Mr. Tapash Mukherjee, learned counsel appearing for the respondent no.2 submits that the investigating officer has conducted the investigation impartially according to the law and after giving opportunity of hearing and as such no fruitful purpose will be served by making re -investigation or further investigation of the instant criminal case.;