High Court Division · Criminal Miscellaneous Jurisdiction
Akhi Begum v The State and another
Criminal Misc 54742/2022 · Decided 11 January 2026
The informant lodged an FIR alleging that the accused attacked her family over an election dispute; her father later died of his injuries and section 304 of the Penal Code was added. A co-accused's confession under section 164 named a further person not in the FIR, but the police charge sheet and a supplementary charge sheet sought his discharge. The Senior Judicial Magistrate, Patuakhali, rejected the informant's naraji (protest) petition and the Sessions Judge upheld that order. The High Court Division held that the Magistrate had weighed the evidence as if trying a murder case instead of seeking a prima facie case. A naraji petition has the status of a fresh complaint, yet the complainant was not examined under section 200, and section 202(2A), requiring witnesses to be examined on oath in cases triable exclusively by the Court of Sessions, was overlooked. The Sessions Judge's order was set aside and the petition directed to be reheard by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Patuakhali, with notice to the discharged accused.
- Q1
Whether the Magistrate lawfully rejected the informant's naraji (protest) petition against the discharge of an accused named in a co-accused's confession.
- Q2
Whether a Magistrate dealing with a naraji petition alleging an offence triable by the Court of Sessions must follow sections 200 and 202(2A) of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
- On a naraji petition the Magistrate's task is to find a prima facie case or arrange investigation for cognizance, not to analyse the evidence as a trial court would in a murder case.
- A naraji petition alleging an offence including section 302 of the Penal Code has the status of a fresh complaint, and the complainant should be examined under section 200 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
- Where the Magistrate inquires into such a complaint himself and the offence is triable exclusively by the Court of Sessions, section 202(2A) requires him to call on the complainant to produce all witnesses and examine them on oath.
- An inculpatory judicial confession naming a co-accused, recorded after police verification under regulation 283 of the Police Regulations, 1943, has prima facie value unless displaced by other legal evidence at trial.
- The Sessions Judge's order of 09.02.2022 was set aside and the naraji petition was directed to be reheard by the Chief Judicial Magistrate or an Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, with notice to the discharged accused.
the learned Magistrate has assumed the power of Sessions Judge to analyze the evidences like a murder case, rather to find out the prima facie of offence or to arrange investigation to have prima facie for taking cognizance of the offence alleged.
In the court’s own words.
Criminal Misc 54742/2022, as published by the Supreme Court of Bangladesh. 15 pages, with paragraph numbers for citing.
1IN THE SUPREME COURT OF BANGLADESH
HIGH COURT DIVISION
2(CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS JURISDICTION)
Present:
3Mr. Justice K.M. Hafizul Alam
And
4Mr. Justice Abdur Rahman Criminal Miscellaneous Case No. 54742 of 2022
In the matter of:
5Most. Akhi Begum
……Informant-petitioner
-Versus-
6The State & another
……..Opposite parties
7Mr. Anisur Rahman (Raihan), Advocate
……..For the Accused-petitioner
8None appeared.
…….For the opposite party No. 01
9Ms. Shiuli Khanam, DAG, with
10Mr. Md. Nazrul Islam (Choton), DAG,
11Mr. Md. Humayun Karim Siddique, AAG and
12Ms. Aklima Parven, AAG
…….For the State
13Heard on 19.11.2025 and 23.11.2025.
14Judgment on 11.01.2026 A.D., Sunday, 27 Poush,
1432 B.S.
15Abdur Rahman, J. This Rule was issued at the instance of the informant petitioner, calling upon the opposite parties in the following terms:
16“GB g‡g© ivóª-Acicÿ‡`i cÖwZ KviY `k©v‡bvc~e©K iæj Rvix Kiv nBj, ‡Kb cUzqvLvjxi `vqiv RR Av`vj‡Zi †dxR`vix 83/2021 bs wiwfk‡b cÖPvwiZ 09/02/2022 Zvwi‡Li ZwK©q ivq I Av‡`k i` I iwnZ (set aside ) Kiv nB‡e bv? †h ivq I Av‡`kg~‡j cUzqvLvjxi Pxd RywWwkqvj g¨vwR‡÷ªU Av`vj‡Z `Ûwewai 143/341/323/325/326/ 302/307/34 avivi Awf‡hv‡M wePviaxb wR.Avi. 05/2017 bs gvgjvq cÖPvwiZ 02/03/2021 Zvwi‡Li ivq I Av‡`k envjc~eK
© †dxR`vix
17wiwfkbwU bv-gÄyi Kiv nBqv‡Q ; †hLv‡b Avmvgx-Acicÿ‡K AÎ gvgjv nB‡Z Ae¨vnwZ †`Iqv nBqv‡Q Ges AÎ Av`vj‡Zi we‡ePbvq Avmvgx- `iLv¯ÍKvix b¨vqwePv‡ii ¯^v‡_© Avi †h mKj cÖwZKvi cvB‡Z cv‡ib ZvnviI †Kb Av‡`k †`Iqv nB‡e bv?”
The prosecution case, in short, is that on 22.01.2017 at about 20.35 hours the informant-petitioner as an informant lodged First Information (FI) with Dumki Police Station, Patuakhali against 9 accused persons along with 2/3 unknown accused persons which has been recorded as Dumki Police Station case No. 05 dated 22.01.2017, under Sections 143, 341, 323, 325, 326, 307and 506 of the Penal Code, 1860 stating the facts, inter-alia that both the parties are the inhabitants of the same village, and there election dispute was occurred between both the parties regarding UP election and the father of the informant namely Mojibur Bhuiyan (Victim) earlier lodged 3 cases against the accused persons which are pending before the learned Court concerned. Due to the previous enmity and grudge, the accused persons threatened the informant party to kill them. At one stage, on 20.01.2017 at about 05.00 hours, the accused persons made an unlawful assembly armed with country-made deadly
18weapons and attacked the informant party and injured them grievously. Upon hearing hue and cry, the neighbors came forward to the place of occurrence, and the accused persons left the place of occurrence by threatening the informant party. Thereafter, the injured victims were taken to General Hospital, Patuakhali, for treatment. Upon considering the critical condition of the father of the informant, including her cousin, they were referred to Sheer-E-Bangla Medical College Hospital, Barishal, for better treatment. On 23.1.2017 at about 04.00 hours, the father of the informant, namely Mojibur Bhuiyan, succumbed to death under treatment. Being informed, the police made an inquest report regarding the dead body of the deceased and sent the dead body to the Morgue of Sher-E-Bangla Medical College Hospital, Barishal, for a postmortem report on 23.1.2017, and the investigating officer added section 304 of the Penal Code, 1860 with the FIR, hence the case.
19To add the facts, on 1.2.2017, one injured victim, Md. Rubel Bhuiyan, being the complainant, filed a C.R. Case No. 102 of 2017 before the learned Senior Judicial Magistrate, Cognizance Court No.1, Patuakhali against 3 accused persons along with some other unknown persons alleging offence punishable under Sections 143, 341, 302, 325, 326, 307, 323, 506, 114 and 149 of the Penal Code, 1860.
20Thereafter, the case was investigated by the police and found prima-face case, and during the investigation, one accused made a confessional statement under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898 (later on be termed as Cr.P.C), and he disclosed the name of one Md. Jashim Fakir, who was not an FIR-named accused. After completing the investigation, the investigating officer submitted a charge sheet, bearing No. 67 dated 24.12.2017, against 9 accused persons along with a prayer for discharging the accused opposite party No.2, against which
the informant petitioner filed a Naraji Petition and the learned Court below directed the DB (District Detective Branch), Patuakhali, to hold further investigation. After completing necessary further investigation, the DB, Patuakhali, submitted a supplementary charge sheet being No. 32 dated 17.7.2019 against 9 accused, along with a prayer for discharging the accused opposite party No.2.
21Thereafter, on 14.11.2019, the informant filed a Naraji Petition against the said police report, and after hearing, the learned Magistrate was pleased to reject the said Naraji Petition on 02.03.2021. Thereafter, the informant petitioner filed a fresh Criminal Revision being No. 83 of 2021, against the order of learned Magistrate before the learned Sessions Judge, Patuakhali and after hearing the learned Sessions Judge was pleased to reject the said Criminal Revision and thereby upheld the order dated 02.03.2021 passed by the learned Senior Judicial Magistrate, vide impugned judgment and order dated
09.02.2022, and subsequently, the informant petitioner filed this Criminal Miscellaneous Case under section 561A of the CPC challenging the impugned judgment and order of the learned Sessions Judge, Patuakhali.
22Mr. Abid Hossain, the learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the informant petitioner, has submitted that though the opposite party No.2, Md. Jashim Fakir, who was not an FIR-named accused, but the principal accused, Md. Ruhul Amin Shikder made a confessional statement under section 164 of the CPC who disclosed the name of the accused opposite party No.2 including other accused in commissioning the alleged offence of the case.
23Learned Advocate further submitted that the learned Sessions Judge also failed to consider the facts and circumstances of the case, thereafter the impugned order is not sustainable or tenable in the eye of law, hence, the same is liable to be quashed.
24On the other hand, none appeared for the opposite party No.2, thus the learned Deputy Attorney General, Md. J.R. Khan Robin, appearing on behalf of the State opposite party, opposed the Rule.
25We have perused the application along with the prosecution materials annexed thereto. We have also considered the submissions made by the learned Deputy Attorney General.
26The prosecution’s material exposes that one coaccused Ruhul Amin made a confessional statement who disclosed the name specifically stated that, “তখন বােরক বেল আিম জিসমেক িদলাম, জিসম নাক মুখ বেধ কলবািড়র বাজাের িছল। আিম কলবািড় বাজার থেক বািড় িগেয় আিম ল আিমন, সিহদুল, লাবু, কালু, সােহল একে মটর সাইেকেল রওনা হই পেথ জিসমেক িনেয় বাজােরর িদেক যাই। আমােদর দেখ ম#জবর ভূ ইয়া ও েবল দৗড় দয়। ম#জবুর ভূ ইয়া আমােদর দেখ এক'ট বাশ হােত নয় মারার জন)। ম#জবুর ভূ ইয়া ঐ বাশ +ারা আমােক বাির িদেত গের ম#জবুর িনেজই কাত হেয় পাকা রা,ার উপর পেড় যায়। তারপর আিম জিসম, বাচ্ চ0 িমেল লা'ঠ
[গােবর লা'ঠ! +ার। ম#জবুর ভ0ইয়ােক িপতাই। লাবলু শিহদুল ও সােহল ঐ েবলেক মাের। আমরা খুেনর উে2েশ) বাির দইিন। কবল আ#জজুর ভ0ইয়ার পােয়র হাঁট0র িনেচ কেয়ক'ট বাির িদেয় বািড় চেল আিস। এলাকার লাকজন আসেল আমরা 4ত এই 5ান ত)াগ কির।”, which consummately divulged that the confession made by Md. Ruhul Amin was inculpatory in nature who entwined the name of Jasim Fakir prima facie bears the truth with the act of committing a crime (i.e., in flagrante delicto), unless dismantled by other legal evidence. But both the Subordinate Courts blink off to the legal effect if so facto.
27However, it is evident from the Naraji Petition (i.e., petition of protest) that the informant specifically mention that, “তাছাড়াও 6া7 মাক2মার তদ8কারী কমকত:
: া মায়ূন কিবর কতৃক
:
28স#
: ১৬৪ ধারার জবানব#< মেত
29জিসেমর নাম 6কাশ কিরয়ােছ উেAখ কের। অথচ ফৗজদাির কাযিবিধ
: ১৬৪
30ধারার জবানব#< মেত 6াF একজন আসািমেকও তদ8কারী অন)ায়ভােব অব)াহিতর 6াথনা
31: কিরয়ােছ। যাহােত বাদীপেGর H তর Gিতর কারণ হইয়ােছ।”, but the learned Magistrate at the time of passing
impugned order mention that, “বাদীর 6ধান আপিJ হেলা সিKক্ষ আসায়ী মাঃ জিসম ফিকর কন C/S এ Not sent up করা হেলা। িকN িতিন িনেজই ঘটনার ০২, (দুই) িদন পের এজাহার দােয়র করেলও মাঃ জিসম ফিকরেক আসামী কেরন নাই। উেAখ য এজাহার দােয়েরর িদন িডিসR মাঃ ম#জবর ভ0ইয়া ও #জিবত িছল। এজাহারকারী Sভাবতই িডিসR ম#জবর ভ0ইয়া ও ২নং সাGী মাঃ েবল ভ0ইয়ােদর কােছ Tেন এজাহার দােয়র কেরেছন। আসামী মাঃ ল আিমন িসকদার তার ফৗঃ কাঃ িবঃ ১৬৪ ধারার জবানব#
32take cognizance of any offence as a Court of original jurisdiction unless the accused has been sent to it by a Magistrate duly empowered in that behalf.
33However, the other essence of the facts of the case is that the investigating officer, after due verification of the statement of the accused person(s), the investigating officer produced the accused person before the Magistrate for recording the confession judicially. For better understanding, we can examine the relevant provisions of Regulation No. 283 of the Police Regulation, 1943, which are as follows:
34“283. (a) (i) When an accused or suspected person volunteers a confession, it should be recorded in detail by a police officer who, if it appears to be true, shall take immediate steps for its verification. Such verification should include the tracing and examination of witnesses named or indicated in the confession and the search for, or
the recovery of, stolen property or other exhibits material to the investigation.
35The officer recording the confession shall further arrange for the confessing person to be sent to a Magistrate in order that the confession may be judicially recorded.”
36From the plain appraisal of the above provisions of law, it is clear that the investigating officer definitely arranged the measurement of verification and thus produced the accused person before the learned Magistrate, who also endorsed a memorandum that the confession was voluntarily made, admitted to be correct and it contains a full and true account of statement made by him, which cannot be rebutted without any sanguine evidence that contradicts it in a trial by a proper Court. In the instant case, the investigating officer who arranged the stage of recording confession judicially cannot stand against his own footing of verification of the said
confession; and if so, be that, both investigating officers might come under the compulsions of offences under Sections 217 and 218 of the Penal Code, 1860.
37From the very facts of the instant case, it is found that the informant initially mentioned some persons specifically and 2/3 unknown persons as accused in the First Information, including 8 witnesses, and subsequently revealed the name of the opposite party No. 2 Jashim Fakir, through a confessional statement, who has not been sent up in the police report. But when the Naraji petition, having the status of a fresh complaint including Section 302 of the Penal Code, 1860, came before the learned Magistrate, who deliberately failed to examine the complainant of Naraji petition under Section 200 of the Cr.P.C and mentioned that, “avh© ZvwiL bw_ †ck Kiv nBj| — †`wLjvg, gvgjvi bw_, GRvnvi, C/S, bvivRx `iLv¯Í I CD ch©v‡jvPbv Kwijvg| —Not sent up Avmvgx †gvt Rwmg dwKi‡K gvgjvi `vq nB‡Z Ae¨vnwZ †`Iqv nBj|Ó which manifestly
indicates that the learned Magistrate assumed power under Section 202(1) of the Cr.P.C as he inquired into the case himself, but overlooked the provisions of Section 202(2A) of the said Code where it is denoted as, if it appears to the Magistrate that the offence complained of is triable exclusively by the Court of Sessions, he shall call upon the complainant to produce all his witnesses and examined them on oath. Surprisingly, the learned Sessions Judge also failed to address these mandatory provisions of law, which was shocking to go through the smooth way of the rule of justice.
38Upon perusal of the materials on record, considering the facts and circumstances as well of the prepositions of law, we are of the view that the Naraji Petition submitted by the informant petitioner which was earlier rejected should be heard again by a Senior Magistrate then the earlier Senior Judicial Magistrate as per law and the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Patuakhali is hereby directed to
hear the Naraji Petition by himself or to make arrangement to hear the same any Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate giving proper notice /summons for appearance of the opposite party No.2 Md. Jashim Fakir for allowing being heard with the due process of law.
39Having considered the submissions, legal propositions, facts and circumstances, we are of the view that the Rule has merit. Accordingly, the impugned judgment and order dated 09.02.2022 are set aside.
40In the Result, the Rule is made absolute with the above observations and directions.
41The office is directed to communicate this judgment and order forthwith.
( Abdur Rahman, J)
42K. M. Hafizul Alam, J:
I agree,
( K.M. Hafizul Alam, J)
Related summaries.
From the record to your case.
Our advocates appear before both divisions of the Supreme Court. These are the practice areas that handle matters like this one.
- Supreme Court practice in BangladeshSlips, mentioning, cause lists and appearances→
- Case JourneysHow a case moves through the courts, step by step→
- Limitation and appeal deadline calculatorKnow your last day to file→
- Curative petitions in BangladeshFinality, article 104 and the case for reform→
- Constitution guideEvery article and amendment, animated→
- Bangladesh legal glossaryBangla and English legal terms, explained→
