Form No. J.(2) v. State of West Bengal

13. The contention, it appears from the submissions made on behalf of the petitioner, is that the private opposite parties were not arrested by the Investigating Officer in course of investigation of the case. The alleged deed standing in the name of the private opposite parties were also not seized by the police authorities during investigation. Beside that there was another allegation that there were several criminal cases pending against the principal accused No. 1 and such fact was not taken into consideration either by the Investigating Officer or by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate while passing the impugned order.

14. On perusal of the impugned order, it transpires that the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate while passing the impugned order applied his mind and observed that the offence complained of punishable with seven years imprisonment. 5

15. In such circumstances, it was noted that the Investigating Officer was the authority to decide as to whether arrest of an accused was required or not in connection with the criminal case. In connection with the previous criminal antecedent of the principal accused, the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate noted that mere fact that there can be any case of similar nature pending against the accused persons cannot be treated as a criminal antecedent of the accused. It was specifically noted that the de facto complainant in the present petition did not come up with definite information that the accused persons were convicted earlier in a criminal case.

16. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances, the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate by the impugned order, proceeded to reject the petition under Section 173(8) of Cr.P.C. filed on behalf of the petitioner.

17. On perusal of the materials on record, I find no infirmity in the impugned order. The same is well reasoned and the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate was quite justified in rejecting the petition under Section 173(8) of Cr. P.C.

18. In such circumstances, I find no merit in the instant revisional application CRR 3529 of 2025 stands disposed of.

19. Urgent photostat certified copy of this judgment may be supplied to the parties expeditiously, if applied for. (MD. SHABBAR RASHIDI, J.) 6