Y.Sajeeven v. Sangeeta Chand

IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA

CRIMINAL REVISION JURISDICTION APPELLATE SIDE [CIRCUIT BENCH AT PORT BLAIR] ******** PRESENT: HON'BLE JUSTICE SUBHENDU SAMANTA CRR /21/ 2023 Shri Y. Sajeeven ... Petitioner

Versus

Smt. Sangeeta Chand ... Respondent For the Petitioner : Mr. Gopala Binnu Kumar For the Respondent : Mr.K.M.B.Jayapal Heard on : October 16, 2023 Judgment on : October 19, 2023 Subhendu Samanta, J.

1.

The instant Criminal Revision has been preferred against the impugned order dated 26.09.2023 passed by the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate First Class-II, South Andaman at Port Blair in CR Case No.146/18 wherein the learned Magistrate has rejected the prayer of discharge filed by the petitioner. 2.

The brief fact of the case is that, the respondent herein lodged a written complaint on 03.12.2016 with the Aberdeen PS against the present petitioner for an offence punishable U/S 354(A)(I)(IV) of IPC and 67 of IT Act 2000. On the basis of the said complaint, FIR No. 659/2016 was started by the police.

During the course of investigation, petitioner was examined and his mobile phone was seized by the police. After completion of investigation, police filed a final report on 31.03.2017 and held that no case is made out against the petitioner for the offence punishable U/S 354(A)(I)(IV) of IPC and 67 of IT Act 2000. 3.

Against such final report, the respondent filed a Naraji petition (protest petition) before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Port Blair for re-investigation and also made a prayer that such Naraji petition may be treated as a complaint for the offence punishable U/S 500 of Indian Penal Code read with Section 67 of IT Act, 2000.

4.

Learned Magistrate on the basis of such Naraji petition, initiated a complaint case being CR Case No. 146/18. The petitioner herein has filed an application before the learned Magistrate for stop the proceedings which was heard by the learned Magistrate and was rejected.

5.

Hence, this instant revision.

6.

Learned Advocate for the petitioner submits that the learned Magistrate has failed to appreciate the facts and circumstances of this case and in a loath manner rejected the application dated 11.02.2021. He argued that the Naraji petition was filed in respect of the final report submitted by the Police in FIR No. 659/16 dated 16.11.2016. The Magistrate cannot itself turn out the Naraji petition to a petition of complaint. There is

no provision of law to allow the present respondent to carry with the complaint case before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate. 7.

He further pointed out that the instant Criminal proceedings initiated before the learned Jurisdictional Magistrate is devoid of merit and beyond the law enumerated under the Code of Criminal Procedure, so it needs to be stopped. Learned Magistrate has failed to assess the entire circumstances and wrongly rejected the application filed by the petitioner. So, he prayed for quashing of the instant criminal proceedings.

8.

Learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the respondent submits that the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Port Blair has treated the Naraji petition of the respondent to be a petition of complaint and a CR case was initiated. He further argued that the order for treating the Naraji petition to be a CR case was not challenged by the present petitioner. After examination of the available witnesses, the learned Magistrate has issued process against the present petitioner. The order of issuance of process also not challenged. There is no provision of law in the Code of Criminal Procedure to stop a criminal proceeding wherein the learned Magistrate has taken cognizance. So, instant Criminal Revision has no merit and liable to be dismissed.

9.

Heard the learned Advocates. Perused the materials on record, also perused the impugned order passed by learned Magistrate.

10.

It appears to me that, the respondent has preferred an application for Naraji before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Port Blair with a prayer for treating the same as a petition of complaint. Circumstantially, no averment or prayer is made in the said petition for further investigation. However, the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate has treated the said Naraji petition as a CR Case and examined the available witnesses U/S 200 Cr.PC.

11.

After perusing the evidences on S.A (Solemn Affirmation), the learned Magistrate had issued process against the present petitioner. Learned Magistrate has also taken the cognizance. After taking cognizance by the learned Magistrate and after issuance of process to the petitioner, the criminal proceeding has set in motion. The application filed by the learned Advocate for the petitioner before the learned Magistrate cannot have titled in specific provision of law but it can be understand that petitioner has preferred the application for discharge. 12.

In this case, it appears to me that the relevant stage for filing petition of discharge is yet to come before the learned

Magistrate.

However, considering the entire facts and circumstances of this case, it appears to me that learned Magistrate has taken cognizance of the offence on the basis of Naraji petition filed by the respondent and learned Magistrate also issued the process after being satisfied of the evidence adduced before him by the witnesses on S.A. Thus, I find no infirmity at this juncture to quash the criminal proceedings. The value of evidences as assessed by the learned Magistrate adduced before him by the witness cannot be assessed by this Revisional Court.

13.

I find no merit to interfere with the Criminal proceedings initiated before the learned Jurisdictional Magistrate in CR case No. 146/18.

14.

Thus, the instant Criminal Revision is hereby dismissed as devoid of merit.

15.

Connected CAN application, if any, are also disposed of. 16.

Urgent Xerox certified copy of this judgement be supplied to the Learned Counsel appearing for the respective parties upon compliance of usual formalities.

(Subhendu Samanta, J.)