Research › Search › Judgment

Calcutta High Court · body

2000 DIGILAW 418 (CAL)

SADHAN CHANDRA BAR v. NEPAL KULSI

2000-08-18

RANJAN KUMAR MAZUMDER

body2000
R. K. MAZUMDER, J. ( 1 ) -THE instant Criminal Revisional application under x is at the instance of the accused-petitioner Shri Sadhan Chandra Bar and this has been filed with a prayer for quashing the G. R. Case No. 208 of 1999 arising out of Chandrakona P. S. Case No. 48 of 1999 dated 26. 6. 99 under sections 448/457/380/411 IPC, now pending before the learned SDJM, Ghatal, Midnapore. The instant Criminal Revisional application under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is at the instance of the accused-petitioner Shri Sadhan Chandra Bar and this has been filed with a prayer for quashing the arising out of Chandrakona P. S. Case No. 48 of 1999 dated 26. 6. 99 under sections 448/457/380/411 IPC, now pending before the learned SDJM, Ghatal, Midnapore. ( 2 ) THE case of the accused-petitioner was in brief that O. P. No. 1 Nepal Kulsi filed a petition of complain the before the learned SDJM, Ghatal on 9. 6. 94 alleging inter alia that on the previous night some criminals entered his house by breaking open the window of the house and after committing theft of various articles including golden ornaments they fled away. It was only on the following morning that O. P. No. 1 came to know of the same and lodged the complaint. According to O. P. No. 1, accused No. 1 Bablu Patra and accused No. 2 Bimal Singh committed the said theft from his house and accused No. 3 being the present petitioner and accused No. 4 Tarit Singh received some of the said stolen goods from accused Nos. 1 and 2. Although the O. P. No. 1 lodged a complaint in 1994 with Chandrakona P. S. in the matter but with no result. Accordingly O. P. No. 1 lodged a second complaint with Chandrakona P. S. on the selfsame incident but again without success. Thereafter O. P. No. 1 filed another complaint on the selfsame incident with Chandrakona P. S. and this time Chandrakona P. S. Case No. 48/99 dated 26. 6. 99 under sections 448/457/380/411 IPC was started. Ultimtely this case rise to G. R. Case No. 208/99 now pending before the learned SDJM, Ghatal. Thereafter O. P. No. 1 filed another complaint on the selfsame incident with Chandrakona P. S. and this time Chandrakona P. S. Case No. 48/99 dated 26. 6. 99 under sections 448/457/380/411 IPC was started. Ultimtely this case rise to G. R. Case No. 208/99 now pending before the learned SDJM, Ghatal. According to the petitioner there could not be any second or third complaint on the selfsame incident between the selfsame parties and accordingly the third case which was now pending before the learned SDJM, Ghatal being G. R. Case No. 208/99 as arose out of Chandrakona P. S. Case No. 48/99 dated 26. 6. 99 was liable to be quashed. ( 3 ) I have had the opportunity of hearing learned counsel for the petitioner and also learned counsel for the State in the matter at length. ( 4 ) THE only question requiring consideration was whether G. R. Case No. 208/99 arising out of Chandrakona P. S. Case No. 48/99 dated 26. 6. 99 should be quashed as prayed for by the petitioner or not. ( 5 ) AT the time of hearing learned counsel for the petitioner Smt. Pranati Goswami vehemently submitted that her client being the petitioner Shri Sadhan Chandra Bar has been subjected to face three different cases as started against him following the lodging of three complaints by O. P. No. 1, the first complaint being made in 1994, the second complaint being made in 1997 and the third complaint being made on 26. 6. 99. According to her all such three different cases were based on the selfsame incident of theft etc. occurred in 1994. Learned counsel for the petitioner argued that under the law there could not be any second complaint on the selfsame incident between the selfsame parties and accordingly the instant G. R. Case No. 208/99 was incompetent and without jurisdiction and consequently the investigation of the said third case could not be allowed to proceed being an abuse of the process of the Court. ( 6 ) LEARNED counsel for the O. Ps submitted, on the other hand, that there was no foul play in the matter inasmuch as only one case arose out of the selfsame incident the case being G. R. Case No. 208/99 as reported by learned SDJM, Ghatal in his report dated 7. 1. 2000 as on record. ( 6 ) LEARNED counsel for the O. Ps submitted, on the other hand, that there was no foul play in the matter inasmuch as only one case arose out of the selfsame incident the case being G. R. Case No. 208/99 as reported by learned SDJM, Ghatal in his report dated 7. 1. 2000 as on record. According to him there was, therefore, no question of second or third case or complaint against the petitioner on the selfsame incident. He, therefore, urged upon this Court for dismissing the instant Criminal revisional application. ( 7 ) IT has been observed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case Bindeshwari Prasad Singh v. Kali Singh as reported in AIR 1977 Supreme Court 2432 that a second complaint could lie only on fresh fact or even on the previous facts but only if a special case was made out. It has been observed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in that connection that the said view had also been taken by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in a case reported in AIR 1962 Supreme Court 876. It has, therefore, got to be seen whether the instant case was the third case instituted against the petitioner on the selfsame incident or not. ( 8 ) IT appears from the record of the instant case that this Court vide order dated 1. 12. 99 called for a Report from the learned SDJM, Ghatal as to whether the instant G. R. Case No. 208/99 was only pending before him or whether two other previous cases on the selfsame incident were still going on side by side against the same accused persons. In that connection learned SDJM, Ghatal was directed by this Court to make an enquiry in the matter by way of calling for a Report from the Officer-in-Charge, Chandrakona, P. S. , Midnapore. In response to the same learned SDJM, Ghatal sent the Report on 7. 1. 2000 stating that only one case being Chandrakona P. S. Case No. 48/99 dated 26. 6. 99 under sections 448/457/380/411 IPC (i. e. G. R. Case No. 208/99) was started against the accused Sandhan Chandra Bar and three others and that except the said case no other case against Sadhan Chandra Bar and others had been started by Chandrakona P. S. over the same incident. 6. 99 under sections 448/457/380/411 IPC (i. e. G. R. Case No. 208/99) was started against the accused Sandhan Chandra Bar and three others and that except the said case no other case against Sadhan Chandra Bar and others had been started by Chandrakona P. S. over the same incident. This Report of learned SDJM, Ghatal made it abundantly clear that the petitioner was facing trial in respect of only one case being G. R. Case No. 208/99 arising out of Chandrakona P. S. Case No. 48/99 dated 26. 6. 99. In view of such a position the question of existence of two other cases against the petitioner on the selfsame incident did not arise at all. Question of second complaint or third complaint was, therefore, a myth. ( 9 ) A look on the petition of complaint lodged by O. P. No. 1 against the petitioner and others which gave rise to Chandrakona P. S. Case No. 48/99 dated 26. 6. 99 (G. R. Case No. 208/99) clearly indicated prima facie that there were ingredients of the offences of house trespass, lurking house trespass, theft from dwelling house and offence of dishonestly receiving stolen property as punishable under sections 448/457/380/411 IPC respectively were there in the petition of complaint. In other words, it appears that the O. P. No. 1 has been able to make out a prima facie case against the petitioner and others in respect of various offences as punishable under sections 448/457/380/411 IPC. ( 10 ) THE law is well settled that when the petition of complaint and its annexed documents made out a prima facie case, the High Court could not enter into a debatable question as to which of the two versions of the parties was true. It is again well settled that the inherent power of the High Court to quash a Criminal proceeding should be exercised very sparingly and in the rarest of rare cases to prevent abuse of the process of the Court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice. In my view, in the facts and circumstances of the case, there was no justification whatsoever for quashing the instant Criminal proceeding being G. R. Case No. 208/99 arising out of Chandrakona P. S. Case No. 48/99 dated 26. 6. 99. The prayer of the petitioner for quashing the instant Criminal proceeding against him is, therefore, dismissed. In my view, in the facts and circumstances of the case, there was no justification whatsoever for quashing the instant Criminal proceeding being G. R. Case No. 208/99 arising out of Chandrakona P. S. Case No. 48/99 dated 26. 6. 99. The prayer of the petitioner for quashing the instant Criminal proceeding against him is, therefore, dismissed. Learned Court below is directed to go ahead with G. R. Case No. 208/99 in accordance with law at an early date. There will be no order as to costs. Petition dismissed.