Research › Search › Judgment

Calcutta High Court · body

2008 DIGILAW 284 (CAL)

Sachchidanand Singh v. STATE OF WEST BENGAL

2008-03-10

ASHIM KUMAR ROY

body2008
Judgment :- (1.) THE petitioner invoking inherent jurisdiction of this Honble Court prays for quashing of the FIR relating to Belghoria Police Station Case No. 31 dated February 9, 2007, under Section 354/506/323/34 of the Indian Penal code. (2.) MR. Dipak Kumar Sengupta, the learned Senior Advocate appearing in support of this application submitted before this Court that the impugned FIR is liable to be quashed on the following grounds : (a) Prior to the lodging of the impugned First Information Report several criminal cases were instituted against the opposite party No. 2 herein, defacto-complainant at the instance of the present petitioner who happened to be the Managing Director of M/s. Calcutta Ceramic Private limited viz. (i) C-438/06 under Section 408 of the Indian Penal Code now pending before the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Court, Barrackpore for misappropriating huge amount of money and valuable documents of the company. (ii) Case No. C-8851/06 under Section 420 of the Indian Penal code now pending before the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, 13th Court, calcutta for cheating the petitioner to the tune of Rs. 60,000/-which she took as an accommodation loan but did not return and misappropriated. Two other complaints were lodged with the Belghoria Police Station against the opposite party No. 2, for criminally intimadating the petitioner. Beside the aforesaid criminal cases another complaint was lodged by the petitioner to the Marriage Officer, before whom the marriage of the opposite party No. 2 was held with one Raj Kumar Roy under Special marriage Act, after he having come to learn that the said Raj Kumar Roy has his wife living at the time of marriage and concealing the said fact he married her. (b) The allegations made in the impugned FIR are entirely false and was manifestly attended with mala fide and has been maliciously made in the background of previous litigations pending by and between the parties. (c) The allegations are so absurd and inherently improbable that on the basis of the same no prudent man can conclude that there are sufficient grounds for proceeding against the accused. (c) The allegations are so absurd and inherently improbable that on the basis of the same no prudent man can conclude that there are sufficient grounds for proceeding against the accused. In the instant case, the complaint was lodged several months after the alleged occurrence and although according to the complainant the incident took place on July 16, 2006 when she went to the petitioner for her arrear salary remain outstanding since January 2006 but no legal steps was taken earlier by her for recovery of the same. (3.) MR. Sengupta further submitted that in a very recent decision in the case of Inder Mohan Goswami Anr. v. State of Uttaranchal and Ors. , reported in AIR 2008 SC 251 , the Apex Court reaffirmed and endorsed its earlier view taken by it in the case of State of Karnataka v. L Muniswamy, reported in AIR 1977 SC 1489 , Madhavrao Jiwajirao Scindia and Ors. v. Sambhajirao Chandrojirao Angre and Ors. , reported in (1988)1 SCC 692 and in the case of State of Haryana and Ors. v. Bhajan Lai and Ors. , reported in 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335. It is his further submission in the light of the law as laid down in the aforesaid cases no Court proceeding be permitted to degenerate into a weapon of harassment or persecution and in such circumstances in the interest it would be justified for the High Court to quash the criminal proceedings. (4.) ACCORDING to Mr. Sengputa it is also for the Court to take into consideration any special feature which appears in a particular case to considerthe question whether it would be expedient in the interest of justice to permit a prosecution to continue. Mr. (4.) ACCORDING to Mr. Sengputa it is also for the Court to take into consideration any special feature which appears in a particular case to considerthe question whether it would be expedient in the interest of justice to permit a prosecution to continue. Mr. Sengupta further draws the attention of this Court to the decision of the Apex Court in the case of State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal (supra) and submitted where the allegations made in the FIR or complaint are so absurd and inherently improbable on the basis of which no prudent person can ever reach a just conclusion that there is sufficient grounds for proceeding against the accused and where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with mala fide and/or where the proceeding is maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive for wrecking vengeance on the accused and with a view to spite him due to private and personal grudge such a FIR or complaint can very well be quashed by the High Court in exercise of its inherent jurisdiction. (5.) ON the other hand, Mr. Swapan Kumar Mullick, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State vehemently opposed the prayer for quashing and submitted that although the petitioner by moving the instant criminal revisional application sought for quashing of the FIR but already the investigation is over and charge-sheet has been submitted. Thus, according to him the present criminal revisional application has become infructuous. Mr. Mullick produced the Case Diary before this Court and submitted that sufficient materials have been collected by the police during the course of investigation which clearly makes out prima facie case of commission of alleged offence as against the present petitioner and thus question of quashing does not at all arise. (6.) MR. Fazlur Rahaman, the learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the defactocomplainant also opposed the prayer for quashing and adopted the submission of Mr. Mullick. (7.) I have given my anxious consideration to the respective submissions made on behalf of the parties, perused the materials on record as well as the evidentiary material collected by the police during the investigation, which are the foundation of the charge-sheet. I have also very carefully considered the decisions relied upon by Mr. Sengupta. Mullick. (7.) I have given my anxious consideration to the respective submissions made on behalf of the parties, perused the materials on record as well as the evidentiary material collected by the police during the investigation, which are the foundation of the charge-sheet. I have also very carefully considered the decisions relied upon by Mr. Sengupta. There is no controversy nor any dispute that the case of Inder Mohan Goswami v. State of Uttaranchal (supra) the Apex Court has very recently reiterated the view expressed by it in its earlier decisions in the case of State of karnataka v. L. Muniswamy (supra), Madhavrao Jiwajirao Scindia and Ors. v. Sambhajirao Chandrojirao Angre and Ors. (supra) and State of Haryana and ors. v. Bhajan Lal and Ors. (supra). However, in the case of State of Karnataka v. M. Devendrappa and Anr. , reported in 2002 SCC (Cr) 539 : 2002 C Cr LR (SC) 324, the Apex Court considered the question of allegations of male fide against the informant, in a case where on an information lodged at the police station a case has been registered and thereupon investigation commenced and in paragraph 9 thereof held as follows : "if it appears that on consideration of the allegations in the light of the statement made on oath of the complainant that the ingredients of the offence or offences are disclosed and there is no material to show that the complaint is mala fide, frivolous or vexatious, in that event there would be no justification for interference by the High Court. When an information is lodged at the police station and an offence is registered, then the mala fides of the informant would be of secondary importance. It is the material collected during the investigation and evidence led in Court which decides the fate of the accused person. The allegations of mala fides against the informant are of no consequence and cannot by themselves be the basis for quashing the proceedings. " (8.) EARLIER also the same view was taken by the Apex Court in the case of State of Bihar v. P. P. Sharma, IAS and Am. reported in 1992 SCC (Cr) 192 and in the case of State of Bihar and Anr. v. J. A. C. Saldhana and Ors. reported in 1980 SCC (Cr) 272. In the case of State of M. P. v. Awadh kishore Gupta and Ors. reported in 1992 SCC (Cr) 192 and in the case of State of Bihar and Anr. v. J. A. C. Saldhana and Ors. reported in 1980 SCC (Cr) 272. In the case of State of M. P. v. Awadh kishore Gupta and Ors. reported in 2004 SCC (Cr) 353 : 2004 C Cr LR (SC)127, the Supreme Court reiterated its earlier views. (9.) IN the instant case, the investigation is over and the FIR has ended in charge-sheet. I have carefully gone through the Case Diary and the evidentiary material collected by the police on the basis of which charge-sheet has been submitted. It appears that police has recorded the statement of some alleged eye-witnesses to the occurrence and according to the said witnesses they were present at that relevant time when the alleged incident took place and now accepting such statements on its face value to be true and correct, it clearly appears that prima facie case of the commission of the alleged offences has been made out. Thus, when the evidentiary material collected during investigation discloses a prima facie case of commission of the alleged offences against the accused/petitioner, the allegation of mala fide against the informant is of no consequences and cannot be the basis for quashing of the proceeding. Moreover, the allegations made against the opposite party No. 2 in the aforesaid complaints are yet to be tested and proved and the allegations made therein cannot by itself be a ground for quashing of the instant case against the petitioner. The rests are pure question of facts and cannot be pressed into service in support of this application. (10) IN the result the instant criminal revisional application fails and stands dismissed.