- (1.) THIS revisional application has been preferred by the de facto complainant petitioner assailing the order dated 9. 1. 07 passed by the learned additional Chief Judicial Magistrate (in short the ACJM), Asansol thereby dropping the case No. C-774 of 2006 in which the learned Magistrate earlier directed investigation under Section 156 (3) of the Cr. P. C. treating the complaint as FIR.
(2.) MR. Prabir Kumar Mitra, the learned Advocate for the petitioner submitted that the surname of the petitioner is Chatterjee @ Chattopadhyay and his father is Nani Gopal Chatterjee. The petitioner married one Kajal, daughter of Kanu Bhuia on 5. 7. 80 and at the relevant time of marriage his father in-law was working at Natindanga Colliery under the E. C. L. The said kanu Bhuia became unfit for his job and approached the E. C. L. , authorities for premature retirement and requested the authorities to appoint the petitioner in his place. The E. C. L. authority accordingly, on the basis of recommendation of Kanu Bhuia appointed the petitioner on 14. 11. 83 and, at the time of appointment the petitioner filled up necessary documents mentioning his surname as well as the name of his father. In the year 1988 he learnt that in the official record of the colliery his surname/title was changed to Bhuia from chattopadhyay. The petitioner accordingly approached the authorities for rectification of the error and to incorporate the name of his father and their title in the records of the colliery but the accused persons did nothing. The petitioner thereafter filed a writ application being C. O. No. 3398 (W) of 1991 and a learned single Judge of this Court by order dated 19. 7. 01 directed the Chairman-cum-Managing Director of E. C. L. , Sanctoria to consider the matter of rectification and gave liberty to the petitioner to make fresh representation before the authorities. The petitioner accordingly submitted fresh representation before the E. C. L. authorities but, they rejected the representation without taking into consideration the real problem. Subsequently, the accused persons arrayed in the complaint, who were the General Manager of Jhanjra Colliery, Chief general Manager, Personnel Manager and Agent, MIC, Jhanjra Project by entering into criminal conspiracy issued charge sheet against the petitioner. There was no enquiry on the basis of charge sheet dated 17. 10. 02, and thereafter, they issued another charge sheet dated 21. 7. 04/30. 7. 04 and in the official records the accused persons, who were the aforesaid officers of the colliery, showed his residential address at Khagharia in Bihar. The petitioner learnt that the accused persons had also erased the original entries of his service record and, intentionally entered wrong entries in the service record and everywhere they filled up records and forms using thumb impression of a fictitious person whereas the petitioner originally filled up all the papers putting his signatures in the service record.
(3.) MR. Mitra next contended that not only that, the accused persons also forced him to confess his guilt and also threatened him that he would be dismissed unless he confesses his guilt. Finding no other alternative the petitioner filed a written complaint before the learned ACJM, Asansol praying for direction upon the concerned police station for investigation under Section 156 (3) of the Cr. P. C. treating the petition of complaint as FIR. When the written complaint was filed in Court it was registered as case No. C-744 of 2006. The learned ACJM, Asansol on the basis of such written complaint directed the officer-in-charge, Hirapur P. S. to investigate the matter under Section 156 (3)of the Cr. P. C. treating the complaint as FIR. On 17. 11. 06 the officer-in-charge of Hirapur P. S. submitted a report that place of occurrence falls within the jurisdiction of Kulti P. S. and the learned ACJM accordingly sent the written complaint to the officer-in-charge, Kulti P. S. for investigation. On 9. 1. 07 the officer-in-charge, Kulti P. S. submitted a report before the learned ACJM stating therein that the incident took place outside the territorial jurisdiction of Kulti p. S. and, it should be sent to Faridpur P. S. The learned Magistrate thereafter by the impugned order dated 9. 1. 07 dropped the case and at the same time he rejected the petition under Section 156 (3) of the Cr. P. C.;