LexCHITTARANJAN MIRDHA versus DULAL GHOSH AND ANR.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
(2009] 8 S.C.R. 412 ·- A CHITTARANJAN MIRDHA v. DULAL GHOSH AND ANR. (Criminal Appeal No. 964 of 2009) B MAY 8, 2009 [DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT AND HARJIT SINGH BEDI, JJ.] .. Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - ss. 173(2) and 190(1 )(b) - Report of police officer on completion of c investigation - Report forwarded to Magistrate - Functions and obligation of the Magistrate - Requirement of notice to informant - Held: Upon receipt of a police report under s.173(2), a Magistrate is entitled to take cognizance of an offence under s.190(1)(b), even if the police report is to the D effect that no case is made out against the accused - The informant is not prejudicially affected when the Magistrate decides to take cognizance and to proceed with the case - But where the Magistrate decides that sufficient ground does not subsist for proceeding further and drops the proceeding E or takes the view that there is material for proceeding against some and there are insufficient grounds in respect of others, the informant would certainly be prejudiced as the First Information Report lodged becomes wholly or partially • • ineffective - Though s.173 in terms does not refer to any F notice to be given to raise any protest to the report submitted by the police, the Magistrate has to give notice to the informant and provide an opportunity to be heard at the time of consideration of the report - If the informant is not aware as to when the matter is to be considered, he cannot be faulted, G even if protest petition in reply to the notice issued by the police has been filed belatedly - But the right is conferred on , ~ the informant and none else. Bhagwant Singh v. Commissioner of Police and Another AIR 1985 SC 1285; Mis. India Sarat Pvt. Ltd. v. State of H 412 •· CHITIARANJAN MIRDHA v. DULAL GHOSH AND 413 ANR. kamataka and another AIR (1989) SC 885 and Gangadhar A Janardan Mhatre v. State of Maharashtra and Ors. 2004 (7) sec 768, relied on. Abhinandan Jha and Another v. Dinesh Mishra AIR (1968) SC 117, referred to. Case Law Reference: AIR 1985 SC 1285 AIR (1968) SC 117 Al~ 1989 SC 885 2004 (7) sec 768 relied on referred to relied on relied on Para 11 Para 13 Para 14 Para 18 CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal B c , No. 964 of 2009. D From the Judgment & Order dated 14.2.2007 of the High Court of Calcutta in C.R.R. No. 1062 of 2006. Rukhsana Choudhury for the Appellant. Salal Bhattacharya, Deba Prasad Nath, Y. Bansal, Rauf E · Rahim, Tara Chandra Sharma and Neelam Sharma for the Respondents. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J. 1. Leave granted. F 2. Challenge in this appeal is to the judgment of a learned Single Judge of the Calcutta High Court quashing the cognizance taken by learned Addi. District and Sessions Judge, 4th Court Alipore in Canning PS case No. 160 relating G to offences punishable under Section 302/34/1208 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (in short the 'IPC') read with Section 25 and 27 of the Arms Act, 1959 (in short the 'Arms Act') pending trial before the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate District South 24 Parganas. H A B c D 414 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2009] 8 S.C.R. 3. Background facts in a nutshell are as follows: A complaint was lodged by the appellant with the Inspector in charge of Canning police station alleging that on 25.12.2000 at about 12 noon when his son Dipak Mirdha was in a saloon under the name and style "Sundaram" at Canning bus stand, he suddenly sustained a gunshot injury on his person. Upon hearing the sound of such gunshot and the chaos which resulted thereby, the third son of ttie complainant rushed to the spot. With the help of others the victim was shifted to Canning Hospital where he was declared dead. There was previous enmity between the victim and one Azimuddin Laskar of Basanti Police Station and Kartick Bose of Canning Police Station over the decoration of Canning Dock Ferry Ghat. In 1999, one Anil Thakur was murdered by some antisocial elements near Canning Hospital. Arnab Roy, Pradhan of Dighirpar Gram Panchayat, falsely implicated the complainant's son being the victim, in connection with that murder On the basis of such complaint, Canning P .S. case No.160 dated 25.12.2000 was started. After completion of E investigation, the Investigating Authority submitted chargesheet No. 141 dated 2.9.07.2001 implicating Animesh Halder@ Kuche, Rajes
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.