Research › Search › Judgment

Calcutta High Court · body

2000 DIGILAW 589 (CAL)

CHANDI CHARAN MAHATO v. STATE

2000-11-29

RANJAN KUMAR MAZUMDER

body2000
R. K. MAZUMDER, J. ( 1 ) -THE instant Criminal revisional application under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is at the instance of the petitioner Shri Chandicharan Mahato and this is for quashing the investigational proceeding arising out of Jhalda P. S. Case No. 102/96 dated 3. 9. 96 under sections 302/380/34 of the Indian Penal Code (G. R. Case No. 1095/96) now pending before the learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Purulia. ( 2 ) THE case of the petitioner was in brief that on 3. 9. 96 a complaint was lodged against him with the Officer-in-Charge, Jhalda P. S. , Purulia by the de facto complainant-informant Shri Monojitananda Avadhut to the effect that on 2. 9. 96 at about 9 P. M. when he was going from Singhghare to Metala in Purulia and reached near the Ananda Marg School, he saw that some persons were dragging the victim Shri Jyotirindra Avadhut from his room. It was also alleged by him that by the flash of Torch light lit by the criminals he could recognise the petitioner in the said gang of criminals. Thereupon the petitioner took shelter by the side of a wall and from that place he could see that the criminals dragged the victim towards the east. After sometime the complainant and some others rushed towards the east and found that the deed body of the victim was lying on the ground with head and throat injuries. Thereafter the complainant rushed to the room of the victim and found that some articles like tape recorder, cycle etc. belonging to the victim were missing. On the basis of such complaint the police started Jhalda P. S. Case No. 102 dated 3. 9. 96 under sections 302/380/34 of the Indian Penal Code against the petitioner and some others. According to the petitioner he was a member of a particular political party and hence he has been falsely implicated in this case by the rival political group and hence the criminal proceeding started against him as arose out of the Jhalda P. S. Case No. 102 dated 3. 9. 96 under sections 302/380/34 of the IPC should be quashed. ( 3 ) I have had the opportunity of hearing learned counsels for all the parties in the matter at length. 9. 96 under sections 302/380/34 of the IPC should be quashed. ( 3 ) I have had the opportunity of hearing learned counsels for all the parties in the matter at length. ( 4 ) THE only question requiring consideration in this case was whether the criminal investigation started against the petitioner by the Jhalda Police should be quashed, or not. ( 5 ) AT the time of hearing learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently submitted that his client has been falsely implicated in this case as he belonged to a rival political party. It was also submitted by him that the instant criminal case was started only out of grudge and that the petitioner had no hand in the incident of alleged murder of the victim. In that connection it was also submitted by him that the petitioner was even granted anticipatory bail by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-in-Charge, Purulia in Misc. Case No. 86 of 1997. He, therefore, urged upon this Court for quashing the instant criminal proceeding against the petitioner. ( 6 ) LEARNED counsel for the State submitted on the other hand, that the petitioner was specifically named in the FIR by the de facto complainant-informant and hence there was prima facie evidence against the petitioner, who could not, therefore, be let off from this case by way of quashing the instant Criminal Proceeding against him as prayed for by the petitioner. He further submitted that the instant Criminal proceeding could not be quashed simply on the ground that the petitioner was granted anticipatory bail by the learned Court of Sessions. ( 7 ) LEARNED counsel for the de facto-complainant-informant submitted that when the name of the petitioner figured in the written complaint lodged by his client, there was no question of quashing the instant proceeding against the petitioner. ( 8 ) IT appears from the FIR lodged by the de facto complainant information with the Jhalda P. S. that on the night of occurrence the de facto complainant-informant found that some criminals were dragging the victim towards the east. It has also been stated therein that the petitioner was one of them and he could recognise the petitioner in the light of the Torch flashed by the criminals. It has also been stated therein that the petitioner was one of them and he could recognise the petitioner in the light of the Torch flashed by the criminals. It also appears from the FIR that complainant being accompanied by some other persons rushed towards the east and found that the victim was lying dead on the ground with injuries on the head and throat. Thus there was a prima facie case against the petitioner in the FIR as lodged with Jhalda P. S. ( 9 ) IT is now well settled that the High Court is invested with plenary powers to quash Criminal Proceedings pending before any sub-ordinate Court, where it appears that the allegations incorporated in the FIR or petition of complaint, even when they are taken on their face value and accepted in their entirety, do not constitute a cognizable offence. It is again well settled that while exercising the discretionary powers to quash a Criminal proceeding pending before a sub-ordinate Court, the High Court shall not embark on an enquiry as to whether the evidence or allegations are reliable or not. In other words, while exercising power under section 482 Cr. PC. the High Court is not required to probe into any question as to whether the materials or allegations constituting the offence were trustworthy or not at the very initial stage of investigation. It is again not necessary that a complainant should reproduce in the body of the complainant all the ingredients of an offence verbatim. Again, it is well settled that when the petition of complaint and its annexed documents made out a prima facie case, the High Court cannot enter into a debatable area as to which of the two versions of the parties is true. It is again not necessary to make a meticulous study of a case before trial to find out whether the said case would end in conviction or acquittal. It is again well settled that the inherent power 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. Such power cannot be exercised to stiffle a legitimate prosecution. It is again well settled that the inherent power 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. Such power cannot be exercised to stiffle a legitimate prosecution. But where the FIR or the petition of complaint does not disclose any offence or is otherwise frivolous, vexatious or oppressive, it is open to the High Court to interfere under section 482 Cr. PC an to quash a criminal proceeding pending before a sub-ordinate Court. ( 10 ) AS already stated FIR lodged by the de facto complainant-informant with Jhalda P. S. and other connected papers as on record made out a prima facie case against the petitioner about his involvement in the alleged crime. There was, therefore, no question of quashing the instant Criminal proceeding as arose out of Jhalda P. S. Case No. 102/96 dated 3. 9. 96 under sections 302/380/34 of the Indian Penal Code (G. R. Case No. 1095/96) now pending before the learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Purulia. ( 11 ) IN view of the position as above, I do not find any convincing reason for quashing the instant criminal proceeding as prayed for by the petitioner. I am of the view that when the written complaint and other materials on record established a prima facie case against the petitioner regarding his involvement with the crime there was no justification for quashing the instant criminal proceeding against the petitioner. The instant criminal revisional application is, therefore, liable to be dismissed and the same is hereby dismissed, learned Court below is directed to go ahead with the case as early as possible in accordance with law. There will be no order as to costs. The instant criminal revisional application is thus disposed of. Application dismissed.