1

S/L-25
03-12-2019

Ct-33
Kole

CRR 1817 of 2019

Chandan Kumar Bera

-Vs.-

The State of West Bengal

Mr. Mritunjoy Chatterjee,
Mr. S. Maity
… for the petitioner.

Ms. Sayanti Santra
… for the State.

I have gone through the record being CRR 1817 of 2019.

The petitioner, being the defacto complainant and the father of

the victim, has approached before this court by filing an

application under Section 401 read with Section 482 of the Code

of Criminal Procedure challenging the impugned order being No.

4 dated 27.03.2019 passed by the Learned Additional Sessions

Judge, First Court, Kakdwip, South 24 Parnagas, in connection

with Sessions Case No. 3 (1) of 2019. Learned Counsel appering

for the State has produced the case diary also. By the impugned

order the learned Judge rejected the prayer of the petitioner for

re-investigation of the case after considering the submissions

made by prosecution and the defence.

During the course of hearing, learned Counsel for the

petitioner submits that the investigation ended in the submission
2

of charge-sheet under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code only.

Learned Counsel invites the attention of the Court to different

annexures i.e., statements of the witnesses under Section 161

Cr. P.C. and submits that the materials collected by the

Investigating Officer during investigation in connection with the

commission of alleged offences under Section 498A of the Indian

Penal Code and also other provisions of the Indian Penal Code.

According to his contention, the Investigating Officer at the time

of filing charge-sheet only mentioned that an offence under

Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code was committed which is not

proper.

On the other hand, Learned Counsel for the State submits

that the Investigating Officer has rightly submitted the charge-

sheet after considering the materials in the case diary.

From the submission and rival submission made by

learned Counsel for the parties, it appears that the petitioner

made prayer for reinvestigation before the learned Trial Court but

failed to justify why further investigation was required to be

conducted by the Investigating Officer.

I have gone through the impugned order. I do not find any

infirmity in the impugned order. From the submission advanced

by the learned Counsel for the petitioner, it appears that the

petitioner has prayed for further investigation only for adding
3

some sections on the basis of materials already collected by the

Investigating Officer. In that case, there is no necessity of further

investigation by the Investigating Officer. However, Learned Trial

Judge is requested to consider the materials collected by the

Investigating Officer during investigation at the time of

consideration of charge.

In view of the above, I do not find any reason to interfere

with the impugned order. Hence the same is rejected on due

consideration.

Accordingly, CRR 1817 of 2019 is disposed of.

Urgent certified photocopy of this order, if applied for, be

supplied to the parties upon compliance of necessary formalities.

( Madhumati Mitra, J. )