Ram Prakash Gupta, J. - (1.) An interesting legal question mooted in this petition under Section 482 Criminal Procedure Code is whether there are any limitations on power of a Magistrate to send a complaint to police for investigation under Section 156(3) Criminal Procedure Cod when commission of a cognizable offence is complainea or, Of course offence complained of should be cognizable. The question is whether the Magistrate is required to make some pre-inquiry from complainant or other sources or call for any documents before directing the police to investigate under Section 156(3) Criminal Procedure Code. The petitioners seek quashing of an investigation by police and the proceeding bending before the learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Howrah, in connection with Sankrail P. S. Case No. 231094 dated 4.12.1994 under section 192/ 379/384/403/506/1208/468/471 of the Indian Penal Code. At the outset it may be stated that a complaint was filed before the S.D.J.M. Howrah. On that complaint the Magistrate passed an order, acting under Section 156(3) Criminal Procedure Code, dated 4.12.94. directing the Area Police Officer to make an investigation into the complaint On that basis an F.I.R was recorded. The contents of the complaint were converted into contents of the F.I.R No, 331/94.
(2.) The contention of Mr. Dilip Kumar Dutta the Learned Counsel for the petitioner, is that the police is making investigation against the petitioners under order of the Magistrate based on the aforesaid complaint and in fact the allegations were such which did not disclose offences alleged if the agreement of lease of the vehicle in question between the complainant and the petitioners had been looked into by the Magistrate. The Complainant claimed to be the owner of truck No. WB-23/1616 along with another person named, Rathin Roy. This truck was purchased by the complainant from the accused company M/s. Jayabharat Credit Ltd. under a hire purchase scheme. The accused Nos. 1 and 2 are allegedly responsible for the day to day business of the respondent company M/s. Jayabharat Credit Co. Ltd. The complainant paid Rs. 1,30,000/-to the accused company in various instalments. However, the accused persons, with the help of associates, acting under a criminal conspiracy, came to this truck on 12.8.94. The truck was going from Calcutta with the goods (Bar soap) of Ms Hindustan Lever Ltd. being transported under the consignment note of M/s. India Transport Organisation. The truck was being drived by Shri Ranjit Jha. The accused persons took forcible possession of the truck and the goods near Alampur. Howrah by pointing of revolver and knives at the Driver. The driver was forced to drive the truck for some distance and then one driver of the accused themselves drove the truck and they fled away with the truck and the goods. The driver and the cleaner were dropped somewhere near by on Highway. The driver then informed the complainant about the effect. It transpires that the accused company had obtained certain documents and papers signed blank from the complainant. The accused persons threatened the complainant not to make any complaint. The complainant approached the accused persons for settlement and to return the good but they did not agree. However, the goods were sent by the accused persons to the Transporter M/s. India Transport Organisation. They kept the truck with them illegally. Hence, the complainant alleged that all the offences were committed by the accused persons.
(3.) A grievance was made that the police was not recording their complaint as FIR and not taking any steps although they had approached the police of the area concerned.;