AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Challenge in this revisional application is the order dated 7th January, 2009 passed by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate at Contai in GR case no. 396 of 2004 arising out of Ramnagar police station case no. 84 of 2004 under Section 467/468/420/120B of the Indian Penal Code.
Learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioner contended that despite successive orders of investigation in the aforementioned case, the investigating officer submitted report in final form on the ground that the dispute relates to civil in nature and that there was absolutely no material to rope in the accused person in the case under reference.
Learned Advocate further contended that the investigating officer did not conduct the investigation properly and did not take appropriate steps to find out the alleged "Nadabi Deed". The investigation has been conducted in a perfunctory manner and accordingly learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Contai was not at all justified in accepting such report in final form.
It is submitted that to unearth the truth and for effective investigation of the case under reference, the investigation may be handed over to the DIG, CID, Bhawani Bhavan.
Learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the opposite party however submitted that false prosecution has been initiated by the defacto complainant in order to harass the opposite parties and in fact, the opposite parties are in no way connected with the alleged offence.
It is further submitted that the opposite parties were not in the picture when the predecessor in interest of the defacto complainant had executed such "Nadabi Deed" in favour of one Gopal Chandra Dey.
Learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the opposite parties vehemently contended that the jurisdiction of criminal Court has been invoked by the present petitioner in order to harass the opposite parties and in order to put pressure upon the opposite parties. The case diary of Ramnagar Police Station Case no. 84 of 2004(GR Case No. 396 of 2004) has been produced by the State before this Court for perusal.
Plot no. 352/656, 355/656, 354/655, 352/671 of Mouja- Kabra J.L. No. 106 police station - Ramnagar within District- Purba Medinipore actually belonged to one Gopal Chandra Dey. The predecessor in interest of the defacto complainant used to occupy the said land with the permission of Gopal Chandra Dey. In the year 1968 the predecessor in interest of the defacto complainant executed a "Nadabi Deed" in favour of Gopal Chandra Dey and the said deed was duly registered. The predecessor in interest of the defacto complainant thereby delivered the possession of such property in favour of Gopal Chandra Dey. Gopal Chandra Dey thereafter sold out the said property to various persons and subsequently the accused persons have purchased the said properties. The "Nadabi Deed" was executed by the predecessor in interest of the defacto complainant on 5.02.1968. Admittedly the present purchasers from Gopal Chandra Dey had nothing to do with the "Nadabi Deed" executed by the predecessor in interest of the defacto complainant/petitioner.
Secondly, the present accused/opposite parties had no occasion to be a witness in such "Nadabi Deed", as it appears from the Photostat copy of such deed.
Therefore, the participation of the present accused persons in the execution of the deed by the predecessor in interest of defacto complainant, in any view of the transaction under reference, cannot be accepted. There is / was absolutely no possibility of the involvement of the present accused in such transaction made by the predecessor in interest of the defacto complainant.
On careful consideration of the entire case diary it appears that no witness has supported the case of the defacto complainant during investigation.
In fact the defacto complainant has resorted to the jurisdiction of the criminal Court in order to nullify a registered document executed by his predecessor in interest obviously with some obligue motive to grab such property.
The dispute, if at all there be any, should come within the civil jurisdiction of competent Court.
Criminal law has been set in motion long after(36 years) of the date of execution of such "Nadabi Deed" by the predecessor in interest of defacto complainant and after the demise of Gopal Chandra Dey and predecessor in interest of the defacto complainant.
This approach of defacto complainant is a glaring example of misuse of the criminal jurisdiction. Learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate has considered the entire facts and circumstances of the case and has also looked into the case diary before giving his final verdict. The matter has been investigated twice by competent police officers.
On careful consideration of the entire facts and circumstances as well as the case diary of the case under reference, it is apparent that learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Contai was perfectly justified in accepting the final report and discharging the accused. I do not find any illegality in such order so as to invoke the revisional jurisdiction of this Court. Fortunately enough for the defacto complainants/petitioner that the investigating agency did not pray for any penal action against the defacto complainant for misusing the jurisdiction of criminal Court and for troubling the investigating agency with some coloured allegations against the opposite parties.
Having regard to the age of this criminal revision I refrain myself from awarding any cost against the defacto complainant/petitioner.
The revisional application being devoid of merit is dismissed. No order as to costs.
Urgent photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for, be given to the parties as expeditiously as possible.