R.K. Bag, J. - (1.) The petitioner has challenged the order dated June 25, 2015, passed by learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Barasat, North 24 -Parganas, in connection with New Town Police Station Case No. 332/2014, by preferring this revision under Article 227 of the Constitution of India read with Sec. 482 and Sec. 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
(2.) It appears from the record that New Town Police Station Case No. 332/2014 under Ss. 279/304A/337/427 of the Indian Penal Code was registered on the basis of a written complaint filed by the opposite party No. 2. On February 05, 2015, charge -sheet was submitted against the petitioner disclosing offence under Ss. 279/304A/337/427 of the Indian Penal Code. On June 01, 2015, the opposite party No. 2 filed an application before the Court of learned Magistrate praying for further investigation of the case. On June 25, 2015, learned Magistrate gave direction for further investigation to the Inspector -in -Charge of the New Town Police Station.
(3.) Mr. Sekhar Kumar Basu, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner contends that learned Magistrate gave direction to the Inspector -in -Charge of New Town Police Station to investigate the case further either personally or by any other competent officer other than the previous investigating officer of the case and to file supplementary report under Sec. 173(8) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. However, the State has transferred the investigation to the Inspector of Detective Department, Commissionerate of Police, Bidhannagar, without informing learned Magistrate. Mr. Basu specifically submits that further investigation is not being carried out as directed by learned Magistrate and learned Magistrate is not informed of the change of investigating agency by the State. Mr. Basu has relied on a decision of the Supreme Court in "Chandra Babu v/s. State Through Inspector of Police" reported in : (2015) 8 SCC 774, in support of the contention that learned Magistrate cannot give direction for further investigation by another investigating agency, which is done in the present case without informing learned Magistrate. He has also referred to other decisions of the Supreme Court in support of the contention that the petitioner being accused has the right to challenge the order for further investigation before this Court, though he has not specifically challenged the order of further investigation. What has been challenged by Mr. Basu on behalf of the petitioner is the change of investigating agency in violation of the direction given by learned Magistrate by keeping learned Magistrate in dark.;