Magistrate Must Rehear Victim’s Plea for Further Probe Where Investigation Appears Superficial: Calcutta High Court Revives Demand for Probe into Overseas Job Fraud

“When investigation is perfunctory and lacks effort to trace the main accused, Magistrate must reconsider the plea for further investigation” — Calcutta HC -Calcutta High Court directed a fresh hearing on a victim's application seeking further investigation into a massive overseas employment fraud, allegedly involving the proprietor of Kingston Travels and Human Resources Pvt. Ltd., after noting serious deficiencies in the prior investigation.

Justice Chaitali Chatterjee Das, setting aside the Chief Judicial Magistrate’s order dated 30th July 2025, held that the rejection of the plea for further investigation failed to apply judicial mind, ignored settled principles of law, and required reconsideration “in the interest of substantial justice.”

“Police Filed Closure Report Without Tracing Main Accused; Victim Entitled to Fresh Consideration of Probe Plea” — Court Flags Investigative Lapses

The petitioner, Arka Mukherjee, had initially filed a complaint in Tollygunge PS/DD Case No. 454 of 2016 under Sections 420/120B IPC, alleging that he and 29 others were cheated of ₹10 lakhs each under false promises of overseas employment by the accused company.

The Calcutta Police’s investigation, however, ended with a Final Report (FRT) effectively closing the case, citing lack of evidence and inability to trace the principal accused, Suman Karmakar, despite “searches” being claimed.

Rejecting this, the High Court noted: “It can be gathered that the learned court took note of the fact that the investigation was not proper… There is no cogent material in the case diary reflecting serious attempts to trace the FIR-named accused.”

“Section 173(8) CrPC Permits Further Investigation Even After Final Report Is Filed” — Court Recalls Supreme Court Guidance on Victim’s Right to Truth

The Court reiterated that the Magistrate retains discretion under Section 173(8) CrPC to direct further investigation even after a closure report is submitted. Referring to the Supreme Court's decision in Hasanbhai Valibhai Qureshi v. State of Gujarat (2004) 5 SCC 347, the Court emphasized:

“The prime consideration for directing further investigation is to arrive at the truth and to do real, substantial justice.”

The Court also cited Rampal Gautam & Ors. v. State by Mahadevpura PS, where the Apex Court held that courts must not shut the door on further investigation simply because a final report has been filed, particularly when investigative gaps are evident.

“Magistrate Failed to Appreciate Cracks in the Case; Direction Issued to Rehear Petition for Probe” — Victim’s Voice Must Be Heard Again

Justice Das found that the CJM, Alipore, had wrongly refused the victim’s 02.07.2024 application for further investigation without accounting for legal standards and evidence gaps. The High Court held:

“The learned court must hear the petition afresh after giving opportunity of hearing to both the parties and to pass a reasoned order without being influenced by any observation made hereinabove.”

The order underscores the active judicial role in ensuring accountability in criminal investigations, especially in cases with potential public impact and organized economic fraud.

Revisional Application Allowed; Magistrate Directed to Rehear Victim’s Plea for Further Investigation

The Court set aside the lower court’s order and allowed the revision, directing the Magistrate to:

• Reconsider the application for further investigation afresh,

• Offer opportunity of hearing to all parties, and

• Render a fresh, reasoned decision uninfluenced by previous observations.

The case now returns to the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Alipore, for fresh adjudication.

Date of Decision: 23 September 2025