- (1.) This revisional application has been preferred under section 401 read with section 482 of the Cr.PC against the order dated 28.12,2004 passed by the Id. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Barasat in C Case No. 446 of 2004.
(2.) The case of the petitioner is that she filed an application under section 156(3) of the Cr.PC alleging therein that on 11.05.2004 the O. P. Nos.2-7 along with police of Teheti Police Camp called on Sanat Ghosh and Ramprasad Ghosh and thereafter said Sanat Ghosh was taken away in a matador van. It has been alleged that the O. P. Nos. 2-5 ransacked the home of the defacto complainant and other villagers and destroyed the household articles and outraged modesty of the women. Said Sanat Ghosh and Ramprasad Ghosh did not return and subsequently the petitioner came to know that they were found dead in a field. It has been further contended in the said petition of complaint that the complainant was prevented by the O. P. Nos. 2-7, with the active assistance of the police personnel, to lodge a complaint. Said petition filed under section 156(3) of the Cr.PC. was forwarded by the Id. Magistrate on 18.05.2004 to the O. C., Barasat Police Station for causing investigation after treating the same as FIR. On 14.08.2004, the Inspector-in-Charge of Barasat P. S. submitted a report before the Id. Magistrate stating therein that Barasat P. S. has already started a case being No.274 of 2004 dated 11.05.2004 under section 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code in respect of the murder of Sanat Ghosh and in the said case Biswajit Ghosh, Moni Ghosh and others have been implicated as accused persons. Said Biswajit Ghosh is the son of the present petitioner. It has been alleged in the report that in order to save Biswajit Ghosh and Moni Ghosh from that case, this petitioner filed the petitioner under section 156(3) Cr.PC and as such police prayed for dropping the matter.
(3.) The petitioner, on 06.12.2004 filed a protest application before the Id. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Barasat stating therein that the investigating officer without visiting the place of occurrence and examining any witness filed the final report against the O. P. Nos. 2-7. Said protest application and the report, both were taken into consideration by the Id. Magistrate, who by his impugned order was pleased to observe that as a case has already been started over the self-same incident, so the petition filed by the present petitioner under section 156(3) of Cr.PC was not maintainable. Said order has been challenged by the petitioner on the ground that as per provisions of section 154 of Cr. PC whenever a cognizable offence is committed, it is the duty of a police officer to record a FIR and then to proceed with the investigation of the case. Since the petition was forwarded by the Id. Magistrate to the concerned O. C., it was his duty to investigate into the matter and thereafter to submit a report in final form. But the Id. Magistrate by his order dated 28.12.2004 was pleased to accept the report of the concerned O. C. and the complaint filed by the present petitioner, was dropped. Being aggrieved by, and dissatisfied with, the said order of the Id. Magistrate, this revisional application has been preferred.;