14.9.2026 Court No.34 Sl. No.25. sg CRR 4590 of 2024 In the matter of : Fatema Bibi ..Petitioner. Mr. Siddhartha Ruj …for the petitioner. Mr. Sujoy Sarkar …for the respondent no. 2 to 17. Mr. Pritam Roy Ms. Ananya Chakraborty …for the State. 1. This revisional application has been filed against an order dated July 9, 2024 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, (in-charge), Suri, Birbhum whereby petitioner filed by the defacto-complainant was rejected. 2. It is submitted by the learned advocate that on November 26, 2023 at about 7P.M. in the evening there was family feud with regard to the residential house of the defacto-complainant of the Fatema Bibi. Later on they were assaulted and attacked with fist and slaps and also used filthy languages towards them along with to her minor son aged about 8 years. It is further case of the petitioner that they suffered severe consequences because of the physical assault and threatening made by the defacto- complainant and the family members and immediately thereafter 2 husband of the complainant after being apprised of such entire incident after returning home at 10 P.M , went to lodge at Panrui Police Station but the same was not entertained. 3. Further submission advanced by the learned advocate that curiously the complainant of this present petitioner was not accepted but both the petitioner and her husband were arrested on the same date at 11 P.M. on the basis of a complaint lodged by the defacto-complainant only about an hour ago. 4. It is the specific contention that despite the fact that the opposite party and their family members tried to outrage the modesty of the complainant and the entire things were narrated to the police station, the police did not act on their allegation but acted in respect of the complaint lodged by the opposite party no.2. Since the petitioner and her husband were arrested there was delay in lodging the complaint under Section 156 (3) of Cr.P.C. It is further case of the petitioner that before the learned Magistrate it was specifically submitted by filing an application that the investigation is not going properly and therefore prayed for monitoring investigation through the learned Court below. Learned Court did not consider the same and rejected the prayer hence this revisional application. 5. Learned advocate representing the opposite party no.2, on the other hand raises objection and submits that this complaint is a counter-blast to the complaint lodged on their behalf. The 3 entire allegation levelled against the opposite party is absolutely false on the basis of the incident happened on November 23, 2011 when a complaint was lodged on their behalf and the petitioners were arrested. It is further submitted that learned Magistrate duly considered the materials from the Case Diary and was of the view that the victim was not admitted to any hospital as per the office record. Therefore the Learned Magistrate rightly observed that investigation is going on and the Magistrate cannot make interference by directing the police to incorporate section 307 IPC. It is further submitted that by filing this revisional application petitioner intends to obtain a direction upon the investigating agency to submit the chargesheet according to the desire of the petitioner which is not permissible in the eye of law. 6. Learned prosecution on the other hand, submits the Case Diary and argues that the Case Diary reveals that she was treated at the outdoor of a super specialty Hospital. It is further submitted that investigation has come to an end and there is no irregularity in the order passed by the Learned Magistrate which warrants interference. 7. Heard the submissions .Considering the factual matrix, it is apparent incident took place on November 26, 2023 between the parties over which a Complaint was lodged on behalf of the opposite party no.2 .The contention made by the petitioner about refusal to act on the basis of the complaint intended to be lodged 4 after her husband returned can be found mentioned in the written complaint lodged and further that they were arrested on the same date on the strength of a complaint lodged by the opposite party no 2. Therefore, it is undisputed that the delay was caused in filing the complaint under section 156(3) Cr.P.C since the petitioner/complainant and her husband were arrested. The order impugned reflects that learned Magistrate considering the materials on CD was of the view that the victim was not admitted at hospital. Statement recorded in respect of the witnesses demonstrate the nature of injury sustained was minor for which the victim was treated at Suri Hospital. Learned Magistrate also observed that investigation being the entire responsibility of the I.O. he did not find any to reason to interfere. Investigation is being processed by the I.O. 8. It is the settled proposition of law that the Court should not otherwise interfere or embark upon the enquiry that has been carried out by the investigating agency unless some glaring irregularities or procedural lapses can be found. The petitioner’s contention that in terms of the allegation made in the complaint section 307 ought to have been incorporated in the chargesheet. That apart modesty of the defacto-complainant was outraged which ought to have been considered. 9. On perusal of the Case Diary it transpires the investigation has to come an end and in terms of the memo of evidence details 5 of a charge sheet already submitted on July 31st, 2024 is evident. Learned Magistrate has not yet taken the cognizance of the same as no document can be found either in the Case Diary or from the submission made by the learned Advocates. 10. In this case as can be found from the record that the Magistrate only directed for the registration of the FIR so as to set the criminal law in motion but has not exercised his power under Section 190 of the CrPC of taking cognizance thereof and in pursuance of the said order, the FIR has been registered which discloses a cognizable offence .Now the investigation is concluded and the Magistrate will take cognizance in accordance with law. It is not mandatory that the Magistrate will accept the same but there is no provision that prior to the fate of the investigation is placed on record the accused can pray for starting the case under a specific provision of IPC. 11. In the present case on the basis of the complaint dated 15.6.2024 the Learned Chief Judicial Magistrate ,Birbhum passed the order directing the Suri Police Station for the registration of the FIR. The Magistrate after being satisfied about the allegations of an cognizable offence for warded the complaint for the purposes of investigation. Therefore, if in pursuance of the said order, the FIR has been registered which discloses a cognizable offence. 6 12. It is settled proposition that the powers conferred upon the court under Section 482 CrPC or Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India are discretionary in nature and it is not obligatory upon the court to exercise the said inherent power in each and every case, provided there is no miscarriage of justice 13. At this stage, this court finds that the petitioner shall have ample opportunity to raise all her objections and contentions before the Learned Magistrate at the appropriate stage, in accordance with law. 14. The order passed by the Learned Magistrate do not suffers from any irregularity or illegality which warrants interference .It is,therefore ,not considered necessary to express any opinion on the merits of the objections raised by the petitioner which otherwise may prejudice the consideration of the matter by the Learned Magistrate . 15. The prayer was made before the court that the I.O was not conducting the case properly and hence to monitor the investigation through court where the where learned Magistrate expressed his opinion about the merit of the case which he should not have made since the chargesheet was yet to be submitted and the Magistrate was not exercising power to take cognizance of the same. 16. However considering the settled position of law this court do not find any merit in the prayer made by the petitioner 7 17. Hence criminal revisional application stands dismissed. 18. This Court has not made any observation touching the merit of the case. Learned Magistrate is directed to proceed sin accordance with law without being influenced by any observation if any made regarding merit of the case. 19. All parties shall act on the server copy of this order duly downloaded from the official website of this Hon’ble High Court. [Chaitali Chatterjee (Das), J.]