Sudip Ahluwalia, J. - (1.) THIS Revisional application has been preferred by the petitioner Dr. Jati Ranjan Banik, after he himself had filed the Complaint Case No. 420 of 2012 in the Court of the Ld. Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bidhannagar, North 24 Parganas, U/Ss. 120B/307/325/326/341/34 of the IPC, against 6(six) accused persons who are the Opposite Parties in this revision.
(2.) THE Ld. Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate after recording the statements of the complainant/petitioner and his other witnesses U/S 200 of the Cr.P.C. was of the view that a prima facie case against 5(five) accused persons was made out U/Ss/323/506/341 of the IPC, while no case was made out against 2(two) other accused persons namely Dr. Rupashree Bhattacharyya and Dr. Gour Mohan Chatterjee, who are the respondent Nos. 3 and 7 respectively in this revision. The complaint was therefore dismissed by the Ld. Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate as against those 2(two) accused persons. The petitioner/complainant is not only aggrieved with the dismissal of the complaint against those 2(two) accused persons, but also with the observation that a prima facie case was made out only U/Ss. 323/506 and 341 of the IPC against the remaining accused persons, and not under the other Sections disclosed in the petition of the complaint, including the offence U/S 307 of the IPC, which is Triable exclusively by the Court of Sessions. The contention of the petitioner is that the Ld. Magistrate had no authority to meticulously consider the evidence led U/S 200 of the Cr.P.C. when the offence Triable by the Court of Sessions was attracted, and so issuance of process by excluding that particular Section was illegal. He has therefore approached this Court for having the impugned summoning order to be set aside and for a direction on the Ld. Magistrate to commit the case to the Court of Sessions in relation to all the accused persons named in the complaint.
(3.) THE revision has been contested on behalf of the Opposite Party Nos. 2 and 3, who filed their in Affidavits -in -opposition. They have prayed not only for dismissing the revision, but also for quashing the proceedings of the complaint case pending in the Ld. Court below. According to them the complaint is not maintainable in as much as already an FIR was lodged earlier by the petitioner's own wife with the Officer -in -Charge of the North Bidhannagar P.S. against all the Opposite Parties and another, in respect of the self same incident of 10th July, 2007, which is the subject matter of the present complaint case. The aforesaid FIR No. 104 lodged on 23.06.2008 was drawn up U/Ss. 341/325 and 34 of the IPC. After completion of investigation a charge -sheet under those very offences was submitted against the accused persons. The complainant/petitioner's wife thereafter filed an application for further investigation on the ground that the offence U/S 307 of the IPC should also have been included in the charge -sheet. But the Ld. Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate rejected the prayer for further investigation on the 25th of June, 2010. Such order of rejection was however not challenged by the petitioner or his wife, who was the de -facto complainant in the FIR, on account of which the same attained its finality.;