Research › Search › Judgment

Calcutta High Court · body

2007 DIGILAW 654 (CAL)

RAM SHANKAR HAZRA v. STATE OF WEST BENGAL

2007-08-28

TAPAN MUKHERJEE

body2007
( 1 ) HEARD the learned Counsel for the petitioner further as well as the learned Counsel appearing for the State. ( 2 ) IT has been contended by the learned Counsel for the petitioner that over the selfsame occurrence, there was two FIR lodged on the basis of the complaint of Smt. Bula Paramanik, wife of deceased Debu Paramanik, chinsurah, P. S. case No. 244 dated 22. 7. 1996 under Section 342/304 of the Indian Penal Code was started and during investigation of that case, the charge-sheet has been submitted against the present petitioner and others under Section 342/177/193/196 of the Indian Penal Code. In respect of the self-same occurrence on the basis of the direction of Human Rights commission, a case was started against the present petitioner Ram Shankar hazra, O/c, Chinsurah, P. S. under Section 342/466/471 of the Indian Penal code and the case was started on the basis of the second FIR lodged as per the observation of the Human Rights Commission cannot be proceeded with and the said case being Chinsurah, P. S. case No. 218 of 1997 dated 18. 6. 1997 under Section 342/467/471 of the Indian Penal Code is required to be quashed by invoking the inherent power of the Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. ( 3 ) THE learned Counsel for the petitioner has further contended that the facts and circumstances of this case are almost covered by the case in t. T. Antony v. State of Kerala and Ors. , reported in 2001 SCR (Criminal) at page 602. He has further contended that as per FIR in Chinsurah P. S. Case no. 244 dated 22. 7. 1996 under Section 342/304 of the Indian Penal Code, there was clear allegation of wrongful confinement and culpable homicide of the husband of the de facto complainant Smt. Bula Paramanik. Whereas, human Rights Commission after enquiry found that the present petitioner ram Shankar Hazra, O/c, Chinsurah P. S. , kept the accused i. e. the deceased illegally detained and unaccounted for from the Morning of 10. 7. 96 to 11. 7. 96 till 21. 05 hours and he fabricated and manipulated the g. D. entries in the P. S. to support his theory of arrest of the accused much later then when it was actually done. 7. 96 to 11. 7. 96 till 21. 05 hours and he fabricated and manipulated the g. D. entries in the P. S. to support his theory of arrest of the accused much later then when it was actually done. There was also recommendation of the Human Rights Commission in the said report that the investigation in the Chinsurah P. S. , Case No. 244 of 1996 dated 22. 7. 1996 under Section 342/304 of the Indian Penal Code was started on the complaint of Smt. Bula Paramanik, wife of deceased Debu Paramanik should be entrusted through C. I. D. and accordingly the C. I. D. took up the investigation in the chinsurah P. S. Case No. 244 and submitted charge-sheet under Section 342/177/193/196 of the Indian Penal Code. So, the allegations of wrongful confinement and fabrication and manipulation of the documents as alleged by the Human Rights Commission were taken into consideration of the investigation of the Chinsurah P. S. , Case No. 244 by the C. I. D. and the c. I. D. found prima facie case under Section 193/196 of the Indian Penal code also which relates to fabrication or manipulation of the documents and consequently, when the charge-sheet submitted in the Chinsurah P. S. Case No. 244 is sufficient as regards the complaint by the Human Rights commission as to illegal confinement of the deceased and fabrication of documents, there is no question of continuance of the investigation in the chinsurah P. S. Case No. 218 of 1997 and that case should be quashed. ( 4 ) THE learned Counsel for the petitioner has further placed his reliance upon the decision reported in (2006)1 C Cr LR (Cal) at page 366 (Sk. Abdus Samim @ Pintu and Ors. v. The State of West Bengal and Am. ). ( 5 ) THE learned Counsel for the State has contended that the trial in the first case has not yet been concluded and the question of double jeopardy, an application under Section 300 of the Code of Criminal procedure does not arise and the investigation started in Chinsurah P. S. , case No. 218 of 1997 cannot be interfered with. The learned Counsel for the State has further submitted that the prosecution should be given opportunity to obtain permission of the Magistrate for making further investigation into the Chinsurah P. S. Case No. 244 of 1996 and to submit supplementary charge-sheet. He has also relied upon the same judgment in the case of T. T. Antony v. State of Kerala and Ors. , cited supra, and referred to the order of the Apex Court permitting investigation agency from seeking leave of the Court in crimes Nos. 353 and 354 of 1994, for making further investigations and filing a further report or reports under Section 173 (8) of the Code of Criminal Procedure before the competent Magistrate in the said cases. The learned Counsel for the State has further contended of the right of reply than when the matter of fabrication was taken into consideration in the first case, the question of giving permission to the I. O. of that case does not arise and there is no need of such permission. He further contended that in the said case being Chinsurah P. S. , Case No. 244 dated 22. 7. 1996, charge-sheet has been submitted and the evidence has been started. ( 6 ) THE learned Counsel for the State has placed his reliance upon the ruling reported in 1970 SC at page 1381 (Lalta and Ors. v. The State of U. P. ). ( 7 ) CONSIDERED the submissions. Perused and considered the materials on record. ( 8 ) IT appears that Chinsurah P. S. , Case No. 244 dated 22. 7. 1996 under Section 342/304 of the Indian Penal Code was started on the basis of the complaint of the widow (Bula Paramanik) of the deceased Debu paramanik that her husband was wrongfully confined and during the torture of her husband in the police lock up, her husband made the doom of his life. The case under Section 342/304 of the Indian Penal Code was started. The case was proceeding for investigation. The case under Section 342/304 of the Indian Penal Code was started. The case was proceeding for investigation. Then, there was an enquiry by the Human Rights Commission as to the unnatural death of the husband of the de facto complainant Bula Paramanik and after enquiry, the Human rights Commission submitted a report suggesting that the present petitioner ram Shankar Hazra, O/c, Chinsurah P. S. shall be prosecuted by the government for having kept the accused illegally detained and unaccounted for from the morning of 10. 7. 1996 to 11. 7. 1996 till 21. 05 hours and also for fabrication and manipulation of G. D. entries in the P. S. for supporting the theory of arrest of the accused much later than when it was done actually. In the said report, it was suggested by the Human Rights Commission that the Chinsurah P. S. , Case No. 244 dated 22. 7. 1996 under Section 342/304 of the Indian Penal Code started on the complaint of Smt. Bula Paramanik, the widow of the deceased, should be entrusted with the C. I. D. In view of the recommendation of the Human Rights Commission, Chinsurah P. S. , case No. 218 of 1997 under Section 342/466/471 of the Indian Penal Code was started against the petitioner and as per the recommendation of the human Rights Commission, the investigation in the Chinsurah P. S. , Case no. 244 of 1996 has instituted on the basis of the complaint of the widow of the deceased was taken by the C. I. D. and it appears that the C. I. D. has submitted charge-sheet in that Chinsurah P. S. , Case No. 244 dated 22. 7. 96 on 7. 8. 2000 under Section 342/177/193/196 of the Indian Penal Code. So, it is crystal clear that the Investigating Officer in the Chinsurah P. S. , Case no. 244 has not only the occasion to investigate into the matter whether there was wrongful confinement of the deceased but it had also the occasion to investigate into the matter whether there was manipulation or fabrication of the G. D. entries and after such investigation, the charge-sheet has been submitted in the case and the same clearly shows that there was not only wrongful confinement but there was fabrication of G. D. entries. So, the purpose for which the second investigation was directed in the Chinsurah p. S. Case No. 218 of 1997 on the basis of the direction of the Human Rights commission was satisfied by the investigation under taken in the Chinsurah p. S. Case No. 244 dated 22. 7. 1996 and there was no need for further investigation even into the offence of fabrication or manipulation of the G. D. entries and the question of permitting the I. O. of the Chinsurah P. S. Case no. 244 dated 22. 7. 96 for unearthing the matter of fabrication of documents does not arise. In the case of T. T. Antony v. State of Kerala and Ors. , reported in (2001)6 Supreme Court Cases at page 181, it was held by the Apex court that the course adopted in that case i. e. to say the registration of the information as the second FIR in regard to the same incident and making fresh investigation is not permissible under the scheme of the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Therefore, the investigation undertaken and the report thereof cannot but be invalid and the second investigation in that case was quashed of course in that case, the Apex Court give the investigation agency liberty to seek permission of the Magistrate to make further investigation and forward further report or reports and thus to proceed in accordance with the law. But in this case, as already observed as the first investigation covers all the matters raised in the report of the Human rights Commission against the petitioner and charge-sheet has been submitted and cognizance has been taken even charge has been framed and evidence has started. There is no need of giving such leave to the investigating agency. ( 9 ) UNDER the circumstances, the Chindurah P. S. , Case No. 218 of 1997 under Section 342/466/471 of the Indian Penal Code against the petitioner is hereby quashed. The instant application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure stands allowed.