Research › Search › Judgment

Calcutta High Court · body

2006 DIGILAW 355 (CAL)

Satyandra Nath Sutradhar v. STATE OF WEST BENGAL

2006-06-16

Arun Kumar Bhattacharya

body2006
JUDGMENT: 1. THE hearing arises from an application under section 482 Cr. PC filed by the petitioner praying for quashing the proceeding being G. R. Case No. 6/94 arising out of Tufanganj PS Case No. 8/94 dated 13. 01. 94 under section 399/402 IPC/25 (1)/27/35 Arms Act, pending in the Court of learned SDJM, Tufanganj. 2. THE circumstances leading to the above application are that on 13. 01. 94 at about 16. 25 hrs. Inspector Y. Singh of BSF lodged a complaint before OC, tufanganj PS inter alia alleging that six FIR named accused persons, reported to be members of ULFA, assembled in the house of one Samsuddin Bapari of champta for committing dacoity. The complainant being armed with service pistol along with force raided the house of said Samsuddin on 12. 01. 94 at about 22. 50 hrs. when there was a scuffle between the police and the accused persons, for which one of the accused viz. Mainul Haque Ahmed received bullet injuries on his stomach. The police arrested the accused persons and seized some currency notes and incriminating documents. In course of investigation the police arrested the petitioner on 27. 01. 94 on suspicion and after completion of investigation submitted charge-sheet against the accused persons including the petitioner. Being aggrieved by continuation of the said proceeding, the petitioner has come up before this Court contending that there is no material showing his involvement with the alleged offence. 3. MR. Kundu, learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that there is no material to show involvement of his client with the alleged offence, and as such the proceeding is liable to be quashed against his client. Mr. Ahmed, learned counsel for the State, on the other hand, submitted that there are materials to connect the petitioner with the crime and though the prayer of IO for adding section 120b IPC was allowed on 27. 02. 94, in the charge-sheet it was possibly omitted through inadvertence. 4. Mr. Ahmed, learned counsel for the State, on the other hand, submitted that there are materials to connect the petitioner with the crime and though the prayer of IO for adding section 120b IPC was allowed on 27. 02. 94, in the charge-sheet it was possibly omitted through inadvertence. 4. QUASHING of proceeding to prevent abuse of the process of the Court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice may be done where: (1) it appears that there is a legal bar against the institution or continuance of criminal proceeding in respect of the offence alleged e. g. absence of requisite sanction, or (2) the allegations in the FIR or the complaint even if they are taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety do not constitute the offence alleged, or (3)the allegations made against the accused person do constitute an offence alleged but there is either no legal evidence adduced in support of the case or the evidence adduced clearly or manifestly fails to prove the charge. In this connection, reference may be made to the case of R. P. Kapur vs. State of Punjab, reported in AIR 1960 SC 866 and State of Haryana vs. Bhajan Lal, reported in air 1992 SC 604 . It is to be borne in mind that the power to quash an FIR by this Court can be exercised very sparingly and; with circumspection and that too in the rarest of the rare cases. At this stage the Court cannot inquire about reliability or genuineness or otherwise of the allegations made in the FIR nor it can inquire whether the allegations are likely to be established or not, as was held in the case of M. Narayandas vs. State of Karnataka, reported in 2004 scc (Cri) 118 at 123. Fir is the sheet anchor for an investigation, but after chargesheet it is no longer the sheet anchor and it is the totality of the records including the materials available during investigation on which the Court is supposed to act, as was held by this Court in the case of Monoranjan Mondal vs. Union of india, reported in 2004 (4) CHN 234. In the case of State of U. P. vs. O. P. Sharma, reported in AIR 1996 SC 2983 it was held that it must be remembered that Fir is only an initiation to move the machinery and to investigate into cognizable offence. After the investigation is concluded and chargesheet is laid the prosecution produces the statements of the witnesses recorded under section 161 of the Code in support of the chargesheet. At that stage it is not the function of the Court to weigh the pros and cons of the prosecution case. The Court has to prima facie consider from the averments in the chargesheet and the statements of witnesses on the record in support thereof whether court could take cognizance of the offence, on that evidence and proceed further with the trial. If it reaches a conclusion that no cognizable offence is made out no further act could be done except to quesh the chargesheet but only in exceptional cases i. e. in rarest of rare cases of mala fide initiation of the proceedings to wreak private vengeance process of criminal is availed of in laying a complaint or Fir itself does not disclose at all any cognizable offence, the Court may embark upon the consideration thereof and exercise the power. At that stage it is not open for the Court either to shift the evidence or appreciate the evidence and come to the conclusion that no prima facie case is made out. 5. IN the case on hand, a glance to the materials on record reveals that there are some materials against the petitioner and as, such in the light of the above discussion the prayer for quashing of the proceeding against the petitioner cannot be acceded to. 6. ACCORDINGLY, the application under section 482. Cr. PC be dismissed. Interim order, if any, stands vacated. Appeal dismissed.