Section 190(1)(b)—A naraji petition is a complaint for all practical purposes and if a Magistrate having power to take cognizance of the offence is satisfied on examination of the complainant that the complaint discloses an offence he can take cognizance of the offence, against the accused under section 190(1)(b), irrespective of an offence which is exclusively triable by a Court of Session. Ziaul Hoque Chowdhury vs State 58 DLR 193.
Sections 190(1)(b) & 200—It appears that the naraji petition has been filed on a complaint but as an application out of apprehension that the Magistrate might accept the recommendation of the Investigation Officer. It is no more than an application to the Magistrate to be cautious and careful in considering the materials before him. Shaban All Mia, Shukur All Khandaker vs State, Md Harmuz All Mollah 48 DLR 55.
Section 200—Taking cognizance of a fresh case without examining the complainant under section 200 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is illegal.
When the naraji does not contain allegation of any offence but is more a protest petition it does not take the nature of a complaint and there is no question of examining the complainant and taking fresh cognizance of any offence. Abu Bakar vs State 47 DLR 527.
Section 200-The Tribunal disposed of the final report not on merit, but mechanically. It is now well established that naraji petition is nothing but a petition of complaint under section 200 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. On receipt of such Naraji petition, the Tribunal may take cognisance against the accused if it is found reasonable and proper or direct further investigation by higher authority or by another agency of investigation. Abdul Halim Md vs State 60 DLR 393.
Section 200-If the naraji petition is filed before an order of discharge has been passed, the Magistrate can take cognizance without examining the complainant if the intention of the appellant appears only to draw the attention of the Magistrate by way of protest, or the Magistrate may treat it as a complaint and examine the complainant, as he thinks fit. Abu Bakar vs State 47DLR 527.
Section 200-Naraji petition—Naraji petition is nothing but a petition of complaint under section 200 of the Code and on receipt of such petition Magistrate may take cognizance against accused persons or may direct further investigation by the Police. The Magistrate is not bound by the final report and may take cognizance against the accused persons on consideration of materials on record or may direct further investigation on his own motion also. Shahjahan Ali Mondal vs Belayet Hossain 47 DLR 478.
Section 200-A Naraji petition is a fresh complaint and a Magistrate is competent to take cognizance on the basis of a naraji petition by complying with the requirements of the Code.
By passing the order of discharge of the accused-petitioner from custody at the instance of $ie police the Magistrate did not become functus fficio and his order of discharge of the accused-petitioner from the custody at the instance of the lice cannot operate as a bar to take cognizance against the accused-petitioner. Nurul Hoque vs Bazal Ahmed 48 DLR 327.
Section 200-Both the Magistrate and the Sessions Judge committed error of law resulting in miscarriage of justice by rejecting the Naraji petition and discharging the accused opposite parties on the basis of the police report. The Magistrate ought to have held an inquiry on the Naraji petition before rejecting the case. Jalaluddin Bhuiyan vs Abdur Rouf 51 DLR 408.
Sections 200 & 202—Judicial inquiry held after police report and upon a naraji petition is permissible under provision of section 202 of the Code and it does not amount to reopening of a case. After receiving the petition of complaint the learned Magistrate proceeded under section 202 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and himself held the judicial inquiry and in that inquiry as the complainant was examined, the action of the learned Magistrate has not vitiated the proceedings in any way for not examining the complainant immediately after filing of Naraji petition. In view of our discussion above, we therefore find no merit in this Rule. Dilu alias Delwar Hossain vs State, represented by the Deputy Cornmissioner 48 DLR 529.
Sections 200, 202 & 561A—When a naraji petition was filed the same petition should have been treated as petition of complaint and the learned Magistrate was required to act in accordance with provisions laid down in section 200 or 202 of the CrPC. Abul Hossain vs State 52 DLR 222.
Sections 190(l)(b) & 200—It appears that the naraji petition has been filed on a complaint but as an application out of apprehension that the Magistrate might accept the recommendation of the Investigation Officer. It is no more than an application to the Magistrate to be cautious and careful in considering the materials before him. Shaban Ali Mia, Shukur Ali Khandaker vs State, Md Harmuz Ali Mollah 48 DLR 55.
Section 200—Taking cognizance of a fresh case without examining the complainant under section 200 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is illegal.
When the naraji does not contain allegation of any offence but is more a protest petition it does not take the nature of a complaint and there is no question of examining the complainant and taking fresh cognizance of any offence. Abu Bakar and others vs State 47 DLR 527.
Section 200—Naraji petition— Naraji petition is nothing but a petition of complaint under section 200 of the Code and on receipt of such petition
Magistrate may take cognizance against accused persons or may direct further investigation by the Police. The Magistrate is not bound by the final report and may take cognizance against the accused persons on consideration of materials on record or may direct further investigation on his own motion also. Shahjahan Ali Mondal vs Belayet Hossain and others 47 DLR 478.
Section 200—A Naraji petition is a fresh complaint and a Magistrate is competent to take cognizance on the basis of a naraji petition by complying with the requirements of the Code.
By passing the order of discharge of the accused petitioner from custody at the instance of the police the Magistrate did not become functus officio and his order of discharge of the accused-petitioner from the custody at the instance of the police cannot operate as a bar to take cognizance against the accused-petitioner. Nurul Hoque vs Bazal Ahmed and 3 others 48 DLR 327
Section 200—Both the Magistrate and the Sessions Judge committed error of law resulting in miscarriage of justice by rejecting the Naraji petition and discharging the accused opposite parties on the basis of the police report. The Magistrate ought to have held an inquiry on the Naraji petition before rejecting the case. Jalaluddin Bhuiyan vs Abdur Rouf and others 51 DLR 408.
Sections 200 & 202—Judicial inquiry held after police report and upon a naraji petition is permissible under provision of section 202 of the Code and it does not amount to re-opening of a case.
After receiving the petition of complaint the learned Magistrate proceeded under section 202 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and himself held the judicial inquiry and in that inquiry as the complainant was examined, the action of the learned Magistrate has not vitiated the proceedings in any way for not examining the complainant immediately after filing of Naraji petition. In view of our discussion above, we therefore find no merit in this Rule. Dilu alias Delwar Hossain vs State, represented by the Deputy Commissioner, 48 DLR 529.
Section—200
Cognizance
Examination of the complainant under section 200 Cr.P.C. is essential when a complaint is filed before the Magistrate. A ‘naraji petition is regarded as a fresh complaint and as such the examination of the complainant under Section 200 Cr.P.C. is also necessary.
Abu Bakar and others Vs. The State, 16BLD(HCD) 283 Ref: 37 DLR 227; 36 DLR(AD)58; 19 DLR(SC) 426; 31 DLR (AD) 69; 38 DLR (AD) 18, 8BLD 438; 1968 Pakistan Criminal Law Journal, 1867—Cited
Section—172
Diary of proceedings in investigation by police
Under section 172 of the Code a Court is entitled to use a case diary not as evidence but in aid of an enquiry or trial. If on perusal of a “naraji petition” or a fresh complaint the Magistrate finds that the facts disclosed in the case constitute any offence under the law, it would be incumbent upon him to take cognizance and issue process. But in the instant case the Magistrate did not as yet take cognizance and did not exhaust the procedures as laid down in Chapter XVI of the Code and as such the criminal revision before the Sessions Judge was obviously premature. Nurul Hoque Vs. Bazal Ahmed and 3 others, 15 BLD (HCD) 231
Code of Criminal Procedure (V of 1898)
Sections 154
Section 154 envisages that information regarding cognizable offence must be procured in writing with the signature of the informant and then it be retained in the police station. . . . (17)
Code of Criminal Procedure (V of 1898)
Section 156
Section 156 states about investigation into cognizable offence; while sub-Section (1) of this Section authorizes a police officer, in-charge of a police station, to investigate any cognizable offence without the order of a Magistrate, sub-Section (3) requires an OC to commence investigation of any cognizable offence if it is ordered by a Magistrate having power of taking cognizance. . . (17)
Code of Criminal Procedure (V of 1898)
Sections 169, 170 and 173
Section 169 authorises the IO or the OC to release an accused when no case is made out against the accused upon investigation. Section 170 directs the OC to send the accused to the Magistrate when evidence is sufficient. In Section 173 it is embodied that following completion of the investigation, the OC shall forward a police report to the Magistrate empowered to take cognizance suggesting either for prosecution or release of the accused person/s. . . . (17)
Code of Criminal Procedure (V of 1898)
Section 156
Method and conditions of taking cognizance;
The designated Magistrates, as categorized in Section 190(1), are empowered to take cognizance of any offence on the basis of 3 types of information. The 1st basis is when a Magistrate receives information through a complaint and 2nd basis is when the Magistrate receives information through police report and the 3rd basis is when the Magistrate receives any information through 3rd party who is not connected with the case or if the Magistrate comes across any incident personally or becomes suspicious of any incident. No trial would begin without cognizance of the offence being taken by a Magistrate. Except the provisions contained in Section 190 of the CrPC, there is no other provision under which a Magistrate may take cognizance. . . . (18)
Code of Criminal Procedure (V of 1898)
Sections 156 (3) 200, 202, 203 and 204
Complaint petition under Section 190 of the CrPC; Duty of the Magistrate:
On receipt of a complaint, a Magistrate has several courses open to him. The Magistrate may take cognizance of the offence at once and proceed to record statements of the complainant and the witnesses present under Section 200 of the CrPC. After recording those statements, if in the opinion of the Magistrate, there is no sufficient ground for proceeding, he may dismiss the complaint under Section 203 of the CrPC. On the other hand, if in his opinion, there is sufficient ground for proceeding, he may issue process under Section 204 of the CrPC. If, however, the Magistrate thinks fit, he may postpone the issue of process and either inquire into the case himself or direct an investigation to be made by the police officer or such other person as he thinks fit, for the purpose of deciding whether or not there is sufficient ground for proceeding. Another course open to the Magistrate is that instead of taking cognizance of the offence and following the procedure laid down under Section 200 or Section 202 of the CrPC, he may order an investigation to be made by the police under Section 156(3) of the CrPC. Whenever any judicial Magistrate decides to take cognizance of any complaint presented by a complainant, he is duty bound to examine the complainant on oath. Before examining the complainant, a judicial Magistrate is always at liberty to send the complaint to the police for investigation under Section 156(3) of the CrPC and thereby not to proceed with the complainant’s complaint under the provisions of Section 200 of the CrPC. If the Magistrate does not decide to proceed under Section 200 of the CrPC, he is not bound to examine the complainant. . . . (19 and 31)
Code of Criminal Procedure (V of 1898)
Section 561A
When revisional order passed by the Sessions Judge may be challenged under Section 561A of the CrPC:
The jurisdiction under Section 561A CrPC should not be readily invoked, as a matter of normal course, for the purpose of examining the correctness, legality or propriety of any finding, sentence or order recorded or passed by any inferior criminal Court which is done in exercise of revisional jurisdiction under Sections 435/439A of the CrPC; meaning that a second revision in the High Court Division in the camouflage of a petition under Section 561A of the CrPC after taking recourse to Section 439A shall not lie. While it is true that the High Court Division would always be loath to entertain an application under Section 561A of the CrPC against the revisional orders passed by the Sessions Judges, however, in an appropriate case where a clear-cut question of law, such as (1) the Magistrate or Sessions Judge has failed to exercise his jurisdiction or exceeded his jurisdiction, (2) the Magistrate or the Secession Judge who passed/recorded the order/judgment was not empowered to deal with or try the case and (3) the case was tried without any evidence as required by the provisions of the Evidence Act, 1872; meaning a case of no evidence, is involved, this Court must not hesitate to exercise its inherent power towards securing ends of justice. . . . (22)
Code of Criminal Procedure (V of 1898)
Sections 156 (3) 170, 200, 202 (2B)
Police Regulations of Bangla, 1943
Regulation 272
What is meant by the words, ‘Charge-sheet’, ‘Final Report’, ‘Naraji petition’ and ‘Objection’
(a) Charge-sheet & Final Report:
In the entire CrPC, only ‘Final report’ has been employed in sub-Section (2B) of Section 202 without telling anything about its definition; apart from it, there was no mentioning of the aforesaid expressions in the CrPC. The Police Regulations of Bengal, 1943 (shortly, PRB), however, incorporates some of the foregoing terminologies containing their meanings. In PRB Regulation 272, a report by the police filed under Section 170 of the CrPC is referred to as a ‘Charge-sheet’ and in PRB Regulation 275, report sent by police under Section 169 of the CrPC has been termed as ‘Final report’.
(b) Naraji petition:
But the words ‘Naraji petition’ or ‘Objection’ have not found place anywhere in the CrPC or PRB; those have been employed in the judicial pronouncements by the Apex Courts. When an informant or a complainant or any one on behalf of the victim of a criminal offence expresses his or her dissatisfaction/ disagreement about the outcome of an investigation and thereby registers his/her protest to the Magistrate, it is treated as ‘Protest petition’; which is popularly known by all concerns, be it the parties to the case or personnel of investigating agencies or members of the Bar & Bench of our jurisdiction, as ‘Naraji petition’ from the time of introduction of criminal Court system by the British in this part of the world through enactment of the first Code of Criminal Procedure in the year 1861which provided an impetus to the criminal litigants to agitate any procedural illegality before a Court of law. The Apex Courts of this subcontinent, including ours, have been persistently consistent in recognising a Naraji petition as a petition of complaint under Section 200 of the CrPC and, accordingly, although as per the provisions of Section 200 of the CrPC, a Naraji petition may be presented before the Magistrate both orally or in writing, in practice, however, Naraji petitions are always filed in writing stating specific allegations of committing any offence by the known or unknown perpetrator/s.
(c) Objection:
On the contrary, when a complaint is made by the informant/ complainant to the superior authority of the IO questioning the mode or pattern of investigation adopted by the IO, or raising the allegation of inefficiency or bias against the IO, the said complaint may be taken by the superior authority of police as an ‘Objection’. Secondly, if during investigation the informant/complainant approaches the Magistrate with the allegations of incompetency or corruptibility against the IO without stating the commission of any offence to have been committed by the named/ unnamed persons, the informant /complainant’s move be treated as an ‘Objection’. Thirdly, when a Magistrate, before passing an order on the police report as to its rejection or acceptance, receives an application from the informant/ complainant containing specific allegations of commission of an offence against named persons, but the Magistrate without examining the informant/complainant under Section 200 of the CrPC directs further investigation under Section 156(3) of the CrPC, the said application of the informant/ complainant would be treated as a mere ‘Objection’. Fourthly, when the informant/complainant files an application protesting the ‘Final report’ submitted by the IO with a recommendation of discharge of the accused, but the Magistrate ignores the request of the IO to discharge the accused and takes cognizance without examining the informant, the informant’s protest petition does not get the status of a ‘Naraji application’ which is to be seen as an ‘Objection’ against the ‘Final report’. . . . (24)
Code of Criminal Procedure (V of 1898)
Section 173(3)
Whether Magistrate is required to hear the informant when a ‘Final Report’ is submitted-If the IO ignores to notify the informant resulting in the informant’s absence before the Magistrate, the Magistrate is quite competent to notify the informant about the submission of ‘Final report’ by the IO and hear the informant before passing an order on the police report. . . . (27)
What is to be considered by the Magistrate after receiving the police report:
Notwithstanding the opinion of the police, a Magistrate is empowered to take cognizance if the materials on record make out a case for the said purpose, for, while the investigation is the exclusive domain of the police, the taking of cognizance of the offence is an area exclusively within the domain of a Magistrate. At this stage, the Magistrate is to see whether there are sufficient materials for prosecution. The Magistrate should not consider the evidence for conviction at this phase. It is the exclusive domain of the trial Court to assess and weigh the evidence and thereby arrive at appropriate findings. At this stage, however, it is open to the Magistrate, before issuing the process, to record the evidence to find out whether an offence has been prima facie made out. On consideration of the averments made in the complaint and the evidence thus adduced, if it surfaces that an offence has been prima facie made out, then processes would be issued to the O.Ps to take further steps in the matter, for which the Magistrate is not required to record reasons.. . . (34 and 35) [2017 (2) LNJ 19]
Ref. Mofazzal Hossain Mollah Vs. State 45 DLR (AD) 175; Syed Ehsan Vs. The State at page 80 in 9 ALR 2017(1); Shaban Ali Mia Vs State, 48 DLR 55 and Bhagwant Singh Vs Commissioner of Police (1985) 2 SCC 537
Code of Criminal Procedure (V of 1898)
Section 156
Whenvever a Magistrate is approached by a complainant with a complaint petition or Naraji petition, s/he may order the OC of the concerned police station to treate it as an FIR and, thereby, investigate the same. So, it is vividly clear that Section 156(3) is a provision about investigation of a case; not about further investigation. . . . (18) Dr. Akhtaruzzaman V. State [2018 (2) LNJ ]
Nari-O-Shishu Nirjatan Daman Ain (VIII of 2000)
Section 11(Kha)
None of the witnesses supported the allegations of the informant. Some of the witnesses stated that informant was divorced long before. Considering the FIR and Naraji petition it appears that the allegation made therein are contradictory to each other. Moreso, the informant was divorced on 14.1.2002 by the accused and notices were duly served upon her. After giving divorce the question of demanding of dowry does not arise. The vague and unspecific allegation of torture made in the FIR does not attract an offence under section 11(Kha) of the Ain. So, the allegations made in the FIR, even if are taken as true, do not constitute an offence punishable under section 11(Kha) or 11(Kha)/30 of the Act. . . .(9) [2 LNJ (2013) 235]
Code of Criminal Procedure (V of 1898)
Sections 190, 200, 202, 203, 204, 435, 436, 439, 439A and 561 A
Upon receiving the Naraji petition against the police report if a Judicial Enquiry is conducted and on consideration of the police report, Judicial Enquiry Report and other prosecution materials, the Magistrate does not take cognizance of an offence against any accused by dismissing the Naraji petition (complaint) wholly/partly under Section 203 of the CrPC and the informant-complainant seeks to revise the order directly from the High Court Division without preferring a revision before the Court of Sessions Judge, the High Court Division’s proper order would be to direct further enquiry. But when the informant-complainant takes recourse to the inherent power under Section 561A of the CrPC, irrespective of the fact whether the petitioner invoked the inherent power directly or after exhausting the revisional forum of the Court of Sessions Judge, on the ground that there is no need for further enquiry in the backdrop of availability of the evidence already obtained through Judicial Enquiry, the High Court Division is not powerless to direct the CJM or the concerned Magistrate to take cognizance of an offence against any accused against whom prima facie evidence is very much evident in the Judicial Enquiry Report subject to the condition that the High Court Division is satisfied that the order of the Magistrate in dismissing the Naraji (complaint) entirely/partly was perverse or ex-facie wrong being manifestly at variance with the evidence which the Enquiring Magistrate obtained. The rationale behind holding the above view is that when the informant, upon disagreeing with the outcome of the investigation by the police, opts for Judicial Enquiry and the Judicial Enquiry reveals commission of an offence against the accused named in the complaint petition, but the Magistrate does not take cognizance, there is no need to conduct further enquiry as the informant-complainant is not raising grievance against the Judicial Enquiry; the complainant’s grievance in the said situation is only against the Order of the cognizance-taking Magistrate. And when the CJM/the concerned Magistrate would be asked to consider the Judicial Enquiry Report afresh and, pursuant thereto, if the Magistrate passes the self-same order, sending back the matter to the CJM/concerned Magistrate would turn to be an exercise in futility. . . . (27) [MD. AYNUL HAQUE VS. THE STATE AND ANOTHER, 2018(2) LNJ]
Narcotics Control Act, 1990, Sections 23, 25, 39
The Code of Criminal Procedure Section 173(3B),439
The letter dated 20-08-1998 returned by the Department of Narcotics Control to the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate is not merely letter, it is a naraji petition, it is not a letter simpliciter, it is an application based on certain facts and circumstances of the case and as such the learned Judges of the High Court Division are wrong in holding that the order of the learned Chief Metropolitan Magistrate dated 28-05-1998 is not a legal order but based on cogent grounds. The High Court Division having not applied its judicial mind in construing the provisions of Section 173(3B) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, which conferred on the Magistrate jurisdiction to direct further investigation and as such the findings and decisions arrived at by the High Court Division are liable to set aside……………..(6)
The letter dated 20-08-1998 returned by the Department of narcotics Control to the Chief Metropolitan magistrate having considered the letter of the said Director General rightly directed further investigation on the prayer of such officer (Director General of Narcotics Control) …………………..(7) [IV ADC (2007) 79]
Narajee Petition-During inquiry the Police in its report merely stated that there is no eye witness to the occurrence. But the complainant in his narajee petition categorically stated that the Police without visiting the place of occurrence without examining the eye witnesses most illegally submitted a perfunctory report. There are sufficient grounds for proceeding against the accused in the case. The Judge of the tribunal without appreciating the narajee petition and without any speaking order accepted the police report. Matiur Rahman (Md) vs Abdul Shahid, 69 DLR 352
Naraji Petition-The ratio have been laid down by us;
(a) when an informant turns to be an accused in the police report, he is competent to file naraji petition without praying to the Magistrate for exclusion of her/his name from the charge-sheet and when the case is taken up by the trial Court for framing charge, s/he shall be at liberty to seek discharge from the accusation brought against her/him;
(b) an FIR-named accused is not eligible to challenge the Magistrate's order, be it for taking cognizance or judicial inquiry or further investigation;
(c) while an informant is competent to file more than one naraji petition, s/he is required to satisfy the Magistrate that it is not a mere protest petition; it has all the features of a complaint petition (CR Case);
(d) although the Magistrate is competent to order for further investigation as many times as s/he considers it necessary, however, when the informant brings allegation of serious biasness against the police department, the Magistrate should order judicial inquiry and a Magistrate conducting judicial inquiry is competent to ask for assistance from any persons/department on top of seeking aid from the experts of the relevant field, such as medical, ballistic, hand writing etc. Shah Kutub Uddin Talukder alias Ruyel vs State, 70 DLR 618
The order passed by the Sessions Judge taking cognizance in revision from naraji petition has no support of law as it is the duty of the Magistrate to take cognisance of the case and by the impugned order, the Sessions Judge usurped the jurisdiction of the Magistrate which the law does not permit him to do. Abdul Aziz Master vs State 59 DLR 468.
The term 'naraji means disapproval of the Final Report True. It may either challenge the report on certain grounds and pray for its rejection or may pray for further action by the Court and rejection of the report by reiterating the allegations made in the petition of complaint. When the naraji does not contain allegation of any offence but is more a protest petition it does not take the nature of a complaint and there is no question of examining the complainant and taking fresh cognizance of any offence.
The action upon the naraji petition by the Court depends on whether the naraji petition is made before or after the order of discharge has been passed by the Magistrate. If it is filed after an order of discharge it will in all probability be treated as a complaint by the Magistrate as in almost all such cases it will contain allegation of offence and the person filing the naraji petition will be examined by the Magistrate as a complain- ant under section 200 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. In case of discharge by the Magistrate the only course remaining open to the complain- ant is by way of approaching the Sessions Judge with an application for further investigation. But if the naraji petition is filed before an order of discharge has been passed, the Magistrate can take cognizance without examining the complainant if the intention appears only to draw the attention of the Magistrate by way of protest, or the Magistrate may treat it as a complaint and examine the com- plainant, as he thinks fit. Abu Bakar vs State 46 DLR 684.
