200 Cr.P.C
Partha Roy
(Querist) 18 June 2010
This query is : Resolved
I had filed a case against a promoter and a bank manager U/s.156(3) Cr.P.C for offences punishable U/s: 420/427 IPC.
After 2 years of conducting investigations the Police has issued a FRT on the grounds that I had filed a case on the same matter before the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission and therefore my complaint was civil in nature. However, in our petition of complaint itself it was mentioned that we had filed a case in the Consumer Court and only after duly noting this fact, the Ld. CJM directed the Police to investigate the case U/s: 156(3) Cr.P.C.
We had filed a 'NARAZI' petition against the FRT filed by the Police and the Ld. CJM appeared to be somewhat irritated by the Police Report because it appeared to insult the knowledge & power of the Judiciary.
He then appeared to suggest that the case should be converted to a 'Summons' Case to be tried U/s.200 Cr.P.C and on our agreeing to his oblique suggestion an Order was passed directing that the case should be tried u/s:200 Cr.P.C.
Could I please have the views of our Experts on whether the action taken by us was correct or if there was any other better option?
Arvind Singh Chauhan
(Expert) 18 June 2010
Learned magistrate and you both have adopted right procedure.
G. ARAVINTHAN
(Expert) 18 June 2010
not following right procedure.
better get an order from high court to follow right procedure
SURESHKUMAR.S
(Expert) 18 June 2010
The Procedure available under law is;
two fold.
1)as per the procedure adopted so far
2)Pending investigation, if are grievance with the method of investigation by police , then you have to file a petition u/s 36 crpc before SP/DCP ,seeking transfer the case to another IO, quoting valid reasons. (which is absolutely administration power). Based on that you can move to HC , to change the Police wing, from one to another, so as to continue the police method.
In case of private complaint,
the entire burden is on your shoulder to prove the case ie., the ingredients of the offence, which is normally heavy on the side of the complainant; you are require to take huge efforts to prove the case.
Devajyoti Barman
(Expert) 18 June 2010
Though it was the better option but that apart you could have also prayed for 'reinvestigation' which is very much permissible in such circumstances.
Partha Roy
(Querist) 19 June 2010
With due respect to the experts who have replied to my query I wish to state that the Police force from top to bottom are biased towards the promoter. The above case was first transferred from the local P.S to the O.C Anti Cheating Section, Detective Det., Police HQ, Lalbazar Kolkata. It was then sent up to the DCDD for his decision. Even the Police Commissioner was involved in trying to find out how the Promoter could be let off and ultimately after 2 years the DCDD issued the FRT. I therefore do not expect to receive any justice from the Police and hence the decision to convert the case from 156(3) to 200 Cr.P.C.
