PR ENGLISH SHORTHAND DICTATIONS: ENGLISH SHORTHAND DICTATION-316

Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment and order dated 01.10.2021 passed by the High Court of Calcutta, by which the High Court has allowed the said revision application preferred by original complainant and has quashed and set aside order dated 12.11.2020 passed by the learned CJM, Alipore rejecting the petition filed by original complainant under Section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure,1973, original respondent nos. 2 to 4 have preferred the present appeals. The original complainant lodged a complaint under Section¹⁰⁰ 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure in the Court of learned CJM, making allegations against the¹²⁰ // appellants herein alleging that she was raped by all the three appellants on 29.11.2018 at about 5:00 p.m. at the residence of original accused no.3 when she was invited to discuss another Crime No. 1 of 2018 registered against their colleagues filed by her. It was prayed to direct the Officer in Charge of Bhowanipore Police Station to start investigation into the matter after treating the complaint as an²⁰⁰ FIR. It was the case on behalf of the complainant in the complaint before the learned CJM that she was a member of the State Committee of the Bhartiya Janata Party in the State of West²⁴⁰ // Bengal. As a person involved in active politics, she has acquaintance with the leaders of the State at national level. On the allegation of rape, she filed a written complaint before the Officer in Charge, Behala (Woman) Police Station against one Amalendu Chattopadhyay. The investigation of the said case resulted in filing of the charge sheet against the above-named³⁰⁰ person. It was further alleged that since the filing of the charge sheet, she was pressurised by the appellants to withdraw the case against the above-named person. On the pretext of having a discussion over the said matter, the appellants asked her to come at the residential apartment of the accused. It was further alleged in the complaint that she³⁶⁰ // tried to inform the matter to the Officer in Charge of the Bhowanipore Police Station but the police suggested her to meet them in response to such call. She went to the residential apartment of the accused on⁴⁰⁰ 29.11.2018 at about 5:00 p.m. The other accused were already present in the said apartment. It was further alleged that the appellants committed rape upon her against her will one by one. Therefore, it was alleged that she became the victim of libido of the leaders of the said political party occupying position at national level. It was further alleged in the complaint that after the incident she was threatened with dire consequences. She was threatened⁴⁸⁰ // by the appellants that in the event she takes any legal steps against them, her son would also be killed.⁵⁰⁰ It was further alleged that subsequently also she was subjected to physical assault and mental torture and she lodged complaints against the accused before different police stations. It was further alleged and so stated in the complaint that over the incident dated 29.11.2018, she tried to make the complaint with the local police station but police refused to accept such complaint from her. She also informed the matter to the higher authorities of the police but they also failed to take any action against the accused by registering an FIR. It appears that⁶⁰⁰ // the respondent informed the Officer in Charge of Behala Police Station on 14.08.2020 about the alleged rape by the accused persons allegedly on 9.8.2018.

The victim filed a complaint before the DCP (South Division), Park Street, Kolkata on 5.10.2020. According to her, she filed a written complaint before the Bhowanipore Police Station on 27.10.2020. She filed another complaint to the Deputy Commissioner of Police on 04.11.2020. According to the complainant, despite the aforesaid complaints to the various authorities making specific⁷⁰⁰ allegations against the accused persons having committed a rape upon her on 29.11.2018, FIR⁷²⁰// has not been lodged and no investigation has been carried out and therefore she filed an application in the Court of the learned CJM, Alipore under Section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure on 12.11.2020 and requested to direct the concerned police officer to register an FIR and investigate into the matter. The learned CJM, by a detailed⁸⁰⁰ order dated 12.11.2020 and after giving cogent reasons, dismissed the said application under Section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the order passed by the learned⁸⁴⁰ // CJM, dismissing the application under Section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure filed by the complainant, the complainant preferred Revision Application before the High Court being Criminal Revision Application No. 92/2021.

By the impugned judgment and order, the High Court has allowed the said revision application and has quashed and⁹⁰⁰ set aside order dated 12.11.2020 passed by the learned CJM, dismissing the application under Section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure mainly relying upon the decision of this Court in the case of Lalita Kumari v. Government of Uttar Pradesh and others and holding that as held by this Court⁹⁶⁰ // in the case of Lalita Kumari v. Government of Uttar Pradesh, the police authority in case of preliminary inquiry prior to the registration of a case concerning cognizable offence, has no jurisdiction to verify the veracity of the allegations and¹⁰⁰⁰ therefore a Magistrate cannot verify the truth and veracity of the allegations contained in the application under Section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure and therefore the learned CJM acted contrary to the law laid down by this Court in the case of Lalita Kumari v. Government of Uttar Pradesh, while entering into the truth and veracity of the allegations.

It has been further held that the learned CJM ought not to¹⁰⁸⁰ // have dismissed the application under Section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure on the ground that¹¹⁰⁰ there was a delay of two years in lodging the complaint, which aspect can be considered only at the time of trial. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment and order passed by the High Court, quashing and setting aside the order passed by the learned CJM dated 12.11.2020 dismissing the application under Section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure and remanding the matter to the learned CJM to reconsider the application filed by the complainant under Section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure¹²⁰⁰ // in light of the observations made in the impugned judgment and order, the original respondents have preferred the present appeals.