HIGH COURT OF TRIPURA AGARTALA Crl. Rev. P. No.30 of 2025 Smt. Kathakali Chowhan, W/o Lt. Biswajit Sarkar, D/o Sekhar Chowhan, resident of Roodraksh Kamalkali, Flat No.3B, T.G. Road, Krishnanagar, P.O. Agartala, P.S. West Agartala, District- West Tripura, Pin-799001. ……… Petitioner(s). V E R S U S 1. Sri Ajit Sarkar, S/o Sachindra Sarkar, R/o Vill- Shanti Palli, P.O. Amarpur, P.S. Birganj, District – Gomati, Pin-799101. 2. The State of Tripura, represented by its Secretary, Home Department, Govt. of Tripura, P.O. Secretariat, P.S. NCC, District – West Tripura, Pin-799010. 3. The Superintendent of Police, West Tripura District, P.O. Agartala, P.S. West Agartala, District – West Tripura, Pin- 799001. 4. The Officer-in-Charge, Ranir Bazaar Police Station, P.O. Ranir Bazaar, District – West Tripura, Pin-799035. ……… Respondent(s). For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Arijit Bhaumik, Advocate, Ms. Ishpa Chakma, Advocate. For Respondent(s) : Mr. Raju Datta, Public Prosecutor, Mr. Rajib Saha, Addl. Public Prosecutor. HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. APARESH KUMAR SINGH Order 18/06/2025 Heard Mr. Arijit Bhowmik, learned counsel, appearing for the petitioner and Mr. Raju Datta, learned Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent-State. Petitioner is the complainant in CR No.195 of 2024 instituted against the respondent No.1, the father-in-law. Petitioner filed an application under Section 102 of the Cr.P.C. seeking a direction upon the Officer-in- Charge, Ranir Bazaar Police Station to seize the articles mentioned in the schedule of the complaint. The learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Agartala, West Tripura, dismissed the application holding that the Section 102 of the Cr.P.C. does not impliedly confer any such power upon the Court to issue such direction to the police. Mr. Raju Datta, learned Public Prosecutor, has further added that the instant case has not been instituted on an FIR. Therefore, no occasion arises for the investigating agency to proceed in the matter. The petition under Section 102 was therefore misconceived. Learned counsel for the petitioner during course of submissions does not dispute that the provision of law was wrongly invoked. He, therefore, does not press the instant petition but seeks a liberty for the petitioner to invoke Section 94 of the Cr.P.C. to carry out a search for seizure of incriminating articles from the possession of the respondent No.1. Learned Public Prosecutor submits that the Court may grant such liberty as it deems appropriate. Upon consideration of the rival submissions of the parties and in view of the prayer made, the instant petition is dismissed as withdrawn. Petitioner is at liberty to invoke the relevant provisions of Section 94 of the Cr.P.C by way of an application before the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Agartala, West Tripura, which may be considered in accordance with law on its own merits. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of. (APARESH KUMAR SINGH), CJ Munna S MUNNA SAHA Digitally signed by MUNNA SAHA Date: 2025.06.19 14:56:07 +05'30'