Sankar Acharyya, J. - (1.) THIS application under Section 397 read with Section 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 has been filed by petitioner challenging an order dated 21.10.2014 passed by learned A.C.J.M., Contai in connection with C.R. Case No. 202 of 2014 under Sections 147/149/304/307/32/322/324/326/354/356/380/382/391/394/441/442/442/444/446/450/451/452/454/457/506/34 of the Indian Penal Code.
(2.) PETITIONER filed the complaint of C.R. Case No. 202 of 2014 in the Court of learned A.C.J.M., Contai alleging an occurrence took place in their house in the midnight at about 11:00/11:30 p.m. on 28.09.2014 when the private opposite parties committed forcible house trespass, assault on petitioner's brother Siddhartha Das, his wife - Pampa, minor daughter Sukanya and two children with attempt to commit murder to Siddhartha, outraged modesty of Pampa and Sukanya with an attempt to commit rape on them, attempt to kidnap Sukanya and looted away cash amounting to Rs. 25,000/ -, gold ornaments, utensils, paddy bags and a mobile phone. The petitioner informed the matter to Khejuri Police Station but police did not take proper steps. Thereafter, petitioner filed the complaint before learned A.C.J.M., Contai with prayer for sending the same under Section 156 (3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure to Officer -in -Charge of Khejuri Police Station for police investigation. But learned Magistrate rejected the prayer under Section 156 (3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure and took cognizance of the alleged offences passing the impugned order dated 21.10.2014. According to petitioner, said order is bad in law and liable to be set aside. At the time of hearing learned Advocate for the petitioner has argued that in the complaint, petitioner alleged commission of several cognizable offences with allegation against Officer -in -Charge of Khejuri Police Station that even getting information of the cognizable offences Police of Khejuri Police Station did not record FIR and so learned Magistrate ought to have sent the complaint to Officer -in -Charge of Khejuri Police Station for registering a case treating the complaint as FIR under Section 156 (3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. In order to substantiate his arguments learned Advocate for the petitioner relied upon a decision of Supreme Court in the case of Sakiri Vasu v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors. reported in : 2008 (1) All India Criminal Law Reporter 478 and a Full Bench decision of Allahabad High Court in the case of Jagannath Verma & Ors. v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr. reported in : 2015 (1) All ICLR 340.
(3.) ON going through the certified copies of impugned order dated 21.10.2014 and of petitioner's complaint submitted before learned A.C.J.M., Contai it appears that learned Magistrate held in the impugned order, "Considering the facts and circumstances of this case as well as the available documents on record, I think there is no ground for invoking the provision of Section 156 (3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Accordingly, the prayer under Section 156 (3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure is refuse.;