RANJIT KUMAR BAG,J. - (1.) The petitioner has preferred this revision under Section 401 read with section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure challenging the judgment and order dated April 17, 2013 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, 9th Court, Alipore in Criminal Motion no. 289 of 2012, by which learned Additional Sessions Judge affirmed the order dated July 17, 2012 passed by learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Alipore, South 24 Parganas in G.R. no. 3690 of 2011.
(2.) The backdrop of preferring the present revision by the petitioner is as follows: The petitioner, being the complainant, filed a petition of complaint before the court of learned Judicial Magistrate, Alipore, praying for forwarding the said petition of complaint to the Officer-in-Charge of the concerned police station for registration of FIR and causing investigation. Accordingly, Sonarpore Police Station Case no. 775 of 2011 dated October 15, 2011 came into force. The Investigating Officer investigated the said criminal case and submitted charge-sheet against the opposite party nos. 2 to 8 disclosing offence under Section 498A/406/420/325/120B of the Indian Penal Code. On June 13, 2012, the petitioner filed an application before the court of learned Magistrate praying for further investigation on the ground that relevant witnesses have not been examined by the Investigating Officer and relevant documents have not been seized by the Investigating Officer in course of investigation and thereby the petitioner is highly prejudiced. On July 17, 2012, learned Magistrate rejected the prayer of the petitioner for further investigation of the said case. The petitioner challenged the order dated July 17, 2012 before the court of Sessions by preferring criminal revision. On April 17, 2013, learned Additional Sessions Judge, 9th Court, Alipore, disposed of the said Criminal Motion no.289 of 2012 by affirming the order passed by learned Magistrate. The judgment and order passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge is under challenge in the instant case.
(3.) Mr. Sanjay Banerjee, learned counsel for the petitioner contends that learned Additional Sessions Judge failed to appreciate that learned Magistrate did not consider the perfunctory investigation conducted by the Investigating Officer. Mr. Banerjee submits that the Investigating Officer did not examine and record the statements of Dr. K.B.Jana of S.S.K.M. Hospital, Calcutta, Dr. Jnandi Pankar of Baghajatin State General Hospital, Dr. H. Nandi and Dr. Sher Mohammed. He further submits that one Tanusmita (Das) Chakraborty, daughter-in-law of the petitioner, who was present at the place of occurrence, was also not examined. He has also argued that one Bhagirath Pyne, domestic help of the petitioner who is well aware of the incident of physical torture of the petitioner has not been examined by the Investigating Officer. He has further argued that the Investigating Officer did not collect the medical report of Dr. H. Nandi who treated the son and daughter-in-law of the petitioner who suffered injury in the same incident of throwing acid by the husband of the petitioner. He has also pointed out that the outdoor ticket and the prescription of the doctor of S.S.K.M. Hospital and the medical reports of the doctor of Baghajatin State General Hospital have not been collected by the Investigating Officer in course of investigation of the case. Mr. Banerjee also submits that the salwar kameez of the petitioner was handed over to the Investigating Officer immediately after the incident of throwing acid, but the same was not shown to have been seized in connection with this case by the Investigating Officer. By pointing out the above lacunae in the investigation, Mr. Banerjee has urged this Court to consider the prayer for further investigation of the case by invoking inherent power under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.;