In The Supreme Court of Bangladesh

  High Court Division

  (Criminal Miscellaneous Jurisdiction)

PRESENT:

         MR. JUSTICE ABU TAHER MD. SAIFUR RAHMAN

AND

              MR. JUSTICE KHANDAKER DILIRUZZAMAN

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS CASE NO. 1291 OF 2000

Abdul Gani Contractor......….…...Accused petitioner 

-Versus-

The State….….....Opposite party

None appears............For the accused petitioner

Mr. Imran Ahmed Bhuiyan, DAG with

Mr. Mehadi Hasan (Milon), AAG and

Ms. Aleya Khandker, AAG

........For the state

Judgment on: The 10th of August, 2023

ABU TAHER MD. SAIFUR RAHMAN, J.

This Rule was issued on an application filed by the accused  petitioner  under  section  561A  of  the  Code  of Criminal Procedure, 1898 calling upon the opposite parties to show cause as to why the proceedings of G.R. Case No. 719 of 1998, arising out of Panchlaish Police station Case No.  26  dated  16.03.1998  under  sections 147/148/448/435/307 of the Penal Code now pending in the Court of learned Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Chittagong so far as it relates to the accused-petitioner should not be quashed and/or such other or further order or orders passed as to this Court may seem fit and proper.

At the time of issuance of the Rule, this Court was pleased to stay all further proceedings of the aforesaid G.R. Case No. 719 of 1998 for 3 (three) months from the date which was subsequently extended till to disposal of the Rule.

For disposal of the Rule, the relevant facts may briefly be stated as follows:

That one Liakot Ali as an informant lodged an FIR with  the  local  police  station  alleging  inter  alia  that  the accused  petitioner  along  with  other  FIR-named  accused persons were very dangerous in nature and always created a anarchy  in  their  locality.  The  informant  as  a  word Commissioner raised his voice against their illegal activities. On the date of occurrence dated 16.03.1998 at around 2.35 p.m.  the  accused  petitioner  along  with  others  with  the intention  to  kill  the  informant  exploded  a  bomb  in  his residence  and  set  fire  to  his  car  and  thereby  caused  a financial damage amounting to Tk. 3,40,000/- (Taka Three lac and Forty thousand). Hence, the aforesaid case was filed against  the  accused  petitioner  and  others  under  sections 147/148/448/435/307  of  the  Penal  Code.  Thereafter,  the accused petitioner duly appeared before the Court below and obtained bail. After investigation, police submitted a charge sheet against the several accused persons and not sent up the name of the accused petitioner in the said charge sheet. As against  the  aforesaid  charge  sheet,  the  informant  filed  a naraji petition before the Court which was allowed vide its order  dated  25.08.1999.  Subsequently  police  submitted  a supplementary charge sheet against the accused petitioner under  sections  147/148/149/447/435/448//307/427  of  the Penal Code which was accepted by the Court vide its order dated 01.12.1999. Being aggrieved, the accused petitioner preferred  this  application  before  this Court  under  section 561A of the Code of Criminal Procedure for quashing the impugned  proceeding  so  far  as  it  relates  to  the  accused petitioner and obtained the instant Rule and stay.   

No one appears for the accused petitioner to support the Rule.

However,  the  accused  petitioner  has  stated  in  his application  that  the  impugned  proceeding  as  against  the accused petitioner is nothing but an abuse of the process of the Court and the same is liable to be quashed for the ends of justice. It is further stated that once a Magistrate has taken a cognizance on a police report, the Magistrate is not entitled to send the same to the police for further investigation, and as such the impugned proceeding is liable to be quashed so far as it relates to the accused petitioner. 

Mr.  Imran  Ahmed  Bhuiyan,  the  learned  Deputy Attorney General for the opposite party submits that since there is a specific allegation against the accused petitioner, the instant Rule is liable to be discharged.

Heard the submissions of the learned Advocate for the opposite party and perused the relevant FIR along with other materials on record thoroughly.

On  perusal  of  the  FIR,  charge  sheet  and  other materials on record it transpires that there is prima facie case against the accused petitioner. The accused petitioner stated in his application that after submitting the charge sheet, the Court  has  no  jurisdiction  to  send  the  matter  for  further investigation. So far this issue is concerned it is necessary to examine the relevant provision of section 173(3B) which reads as follows:

“Nothing to this section shall be deemed to preclude further investigation in respect of an offence after a report under sub-section (1) has been forwarded to the Magistrate  and  whereupon  such  investigation,  the officer-in-charge of the police station obtains further evidence, oral or documentary, he shall forwarded to the  Magistrate  a  further  report  or  reports  regarding such  evidence  in  the  form  prescribed;  and  the provisions of sub-section (1) to 3(A) shall as far as may be, apply in relation to such report or reports as they apply in relation to a report forwarded under sub- section (1)”. 

On perusal of the aforesaid provision, it is clear that it authorities the police officer to carry a further investigation into a case even after submission of a charge sheet under section 173(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure if further evidence is available.

So  the  contention  as  raised  by  the  accused petitioner in his application is not acceptable.

Under  the  given  facts  and  circumstances  of  the case and the reasons as stated above, we do not find any

substance of this Rule.

As a result, the Rule is discharged.

The  order  of  stay  granted  earlier  by  this  Court  is hereby stand vacated.

The trial Court is hereby directed to proceed with the case expeditiously in accordance with the law.

Communicate this judgment and order at once.

Khandaker Diliruzzaman, J:

I agree