28.8.2026 23 sb CRR 776 of 2025 XXX Vs. The State of West Bengal & Anr. Mr. Bratin Kumar Dey Mr. Joydeep Das …for the Petitioner Mr. Imran Siddiqui …for the State In spite of service, the private opposite party/accused is not represented. The petitioner herein has assailed the order dated 12.12.2024 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Barasat in connection with G.R. case no. 908 of 2023 arising out of New Town Police Station case no. 118 of 2023 dated 19.4.2023 under Sections 493/376/417/323/406/506/34 of the Indian Penal Code. By the impugned order, learned court below rejected the petitioner/defacto-complainant’s prayer for further investigation on the ground that after taking cognizance, he has become functus officio and has no power to revoke, review, recall, alter or quash the same. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid order, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the court below did not consider that without making proper investigation, the Investigating Officer has submitted charge-sheet on 31st July, 2023. The Investigating officer did not examine the vital witness like first wife of the accused, the advocate who signed in the affidavit, the person who claimed to be marriage registrar etc. The Investigating officer also did not draw sketch map of the place of occurrence and did not 2 spot out the whole conspiracy to misuse the belief of the petitioner herein that a legal marriage was solemnized. Therefore, the order impugned suffers from impropriety and is liable to be set aside. Learned counsel for the State pointed out that learned Public Prosecutor expressed his view before the court below that the investigation which has been carried out by the Investigating officer was not just and perfect. Therefore, he submits that, the prayer for further investigation ought to have been allowed by the court below, keeping in mind learned public prosecutor’s submission. Having heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the State, it appears that the observation made by the Trial court that once cognizance is taken by the court below, it has become functus officio and has no power to consider the prayer made by the petitioner, suffers from perversity and is not legally sustainable. The ratio laid down in Om Prakash Narang and Another Vs. State (Delhi Administration) reported in AIR 1979 SC 1791 is that further investigation is not to be altogether ruled out merely because cognizance of the case has been taken by the court. Defective investigation coming to light during the course of trial may be cured by a further investigation, if circumstances permit it. In Dinesh Dalmia Vs. CBI, reported in (2007) 8 SCC 770 it was also held that filing of charge sheet and cognizance of offence by the magistrate does not bar further investigation. Para 20 of the judgment runs as follows:- “20. Indisputably, the power of the investigating officer to make a prayer for making further investigation in terms of sub-section (8) of Section 173 is not taken away only because a charge-sheet under sub-section (2) thereof has been filed. A 3 further investigation is permissible even if order of cognizance of offence has been taken by the Magistrate.” It appears from the application filed by the petitioner that the petitioner in his application, has pointed out certain infirmities, like non-examination of certain witnesses and also there are allegations regarding seizure, non-drawl of sketch map and other issues, which have also been conceded by the learned Public Prosecutor before the court below. Therefore, the Trial court ought to have answered those questions raised in the protest petition but instead of that, he had rejected the said prayer on erroneous technical ground and therefore, I find that this is a fit case which demands invoking this Court’s inherent jurisdiction under Section 528 of the BNSS read with Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. In such view of the matter, CRR 776 of 2025 is hereby disposed of with a direction upon the court below to re-hear the petitioner’s application filed under Section 173(8) of the Code of Criminal Procedure dated 9th September, 2024, after giving an opportunity to all the parties to contest and thereafter to pass a reasoned order in accordance with law, preferably within a period of thirty days from the date of communication of the order, without being influenced by any observations made herein. The impugned order dated 12.12.2024 is hereby set aside. Urgent photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for, be given to the parties upon compliance with all requisite formalities. (Dr. Ajoy Kumar Mukherjee, J.)