In a writ petition challenging the investigation into a theft, the bench dismissed the plea, finding no reason to intervene in proceedings where the Trial Court was seisin and the matter had been actively pursued despite non-recovery of all articles.
No direction issued to transfer investigation to C.I.D.; petition dismissed without costs.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
15 13.9.2023 Ct. No. 14 SB
W.P.A. 19686 of 2023
Chittaranjan Das
Vs.
The State of West Bengal & Ors.
Mr. Asif Dewan R. Abedin … for the petitioner
Mr. Pantu Deb Roy Mr. Subrata Guha Biswas … for the State
Affidavit of service filed by the petitioner is taken on record.
Report filed on behalf of the State is also taken on record.
Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits as follows. A theft of gold ornaments took place at the petitioner’s house in the year 2014. Kandi P.S. Case No. 159 of 2014 dated 15.3.2014 was registered under Sections 380 and 411 of the Indian Penal Code. In 2015, the Investigating Officer seized a gold finger ring from the house of an accused who was the house keeper of the petitioner. A charge sheet was submitted against three accused persons. However, the other stolen articles could not be recovered. The petitioner prayed for further investigation which was allowed. Even after further investigation, no stolen articles could be recovered. The petitioner again prayed for further investigation. The prayer was allowed and an officer not below the rank of D.S.P. was asked to further investigate the matter. The same was done and a supplementary charge sheet was submitted on 17.4.2022. The petitioner is still aggrieved with the investigation and wants the C.I.D. to investigate the matter.
2
Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State relies on the case diary and submits as follows. This matter has remained pending for long as the petitioner could not be satisfied with the investigation done by the agency. Three accused persons were earlier arrested. They obtained bail. However, the other stolen articles could not be recovered.
It appears that the learned Trial Court had directed further investigation thrice.
It may happen that all the stolen articles could not be recovered in a particular case.
It is not a case where the accused were not arrested or the matter was not pursued by the police.
Besides, this is clearly not a case which needs to be investigated either by the C.I.D. or the C.B.I.
Moreover, learned Court is in seisin of the matter.
In view of the above, this Court does not find any reason to intervene in the proceeding before the learned Trial Court. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed without any order as to costs.
Urgent photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for, be given to the parties, upon completion of requisite formalities.
(JAY SENGUPTA, J.)
3 issues framed by the court
Whether this Court should intervene to direct the C.I.D. to investigate a theft pending before the Trial Court.
Whether further investigation has been effectively pursued by the agency.
Whether the petition raised under relevant writ provisions has merit.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
CHITTARANJAN DAS
THE STATE OF WEST BENGAL
JAY SENGUPTA
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
