Research › Search › Judgment

Calcutta High Court · body

2008 DIGILAW 906 (CAL)

Ranjit Bhattacharjee v. State

2008-09-10

SANKAR PRASAD MITRA

body2008
JUDGMENT:- (1.) MR. S.S. Roy, learned Counsel, for the petitioner, is present. On the other hand, Mr. P. K. Roy, learned Counsel, is present for the State/opposite party. (2.) IN the presence of the learned Counsel, for the parties, this revisional application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is taken up for disposal. (3.) IN this revisional application the petitioner has sought for quashing of the proceeding of G. R. Case No. 3277 of 2006 arising out of Dum Dum P. S. Case No. 264 dated 20. 12. 2006 under Sections 420/468/120b/34 of the Indian Penal Code pending before the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate at Barrackpore, 24-Parganas (North). (4.) HEARD the learned Counsel, for both the sides. (5.) SEEN the application and the annexed documents. It appears that one Dr. Gour Gopal Das purchased K. V. P. of the value of Rs. 5,97,268/-and nomination in respect of those certificates were made by the purchaser in favour of General Secretary, Ramkrishna Math, P. O. Belurmath, District, Howrah and it was registered by Cossipore H.P.O., Kolkata-2 under Registered No. 4372 dated 15. 5. 1999, 4328 dated 3. 5. 99, 4689 dated 9. 7. 99 and 4634 dated 29. 6. 99 respectively. This Dr. Gour Gopal Das expired on 11. 7. 2000. However, one Shovan Kumar Bandyopadhyay, Assistant Superintendent of Post Office, North Calcutta and 1st Sub-Division at P. O. Ghughudanga, Kolkata-30 lodged an F. I. R. against the present petitioner alleging misappropriation of the said amount of K.V. Ps. (6.) MR. S. S. Roy learned Counsel, appearing for the petitioner, referring to a decision of the Apex Court in the case of P. Sirajuddin etc. v. The State of Madras reported in 1971 Cr LJ page 523 (Vol. 77,C. N. 154) submits that the petitioner being a public servant, before lodging an F. I. R. against him the authority should have held a preliminary enquiry to ascertain whether any offence was committed by the petitioner and if satisfied he could lodge a complaint and in that case an investigation should be done by the police and charge-sheet may be submitted after obtaining sanction from the appropriate authority. It is submitted by him that in this case no preliminary enquiry was held by a responsible officer of the department before lodging the F. I. R. and, therefore, the F. I. R. should be quashed by this Court. (7.) MR. It is submitted by him that in this case no preliminary enquiry was held by a responsible officer of the department before lodging the F. I. R. and, therefore, the F. I. R. should be quashed by this Court. (7.) MR. S. S. Roy, learned Counsel, appearing for the petitioner in addition to this, referred to a decision in the case of Mrs. Vidya Stokes v. State of Himachal Pradesh and Another reported in 1994 Cr LJ 1833 wherein the legal principles, as regards safeguards, which are required to be taken before a public servant is publicly charged with acts of dishonesty, which amounts to serious misdemeanour is the holding of some preliminary enquiry into the allegations. Such preliminary enquiry must proceed in a fair and reasonable manner and the object of holding such enquiry is to avoid causing incalculable harm not only to the officer in particular but to the department, to which he belongs. The necessity of holding preliminary enquiry was emphasized by the Apex Court in the case of P. Sirajuddin etc. (supra). (8.) MR. Roy learned Counsel, for the petitioner, however, submits that the amount of K. V. Ps. has been disbursed to the nominee and as such, the F. I. R. should be quashed. (9.) MR. P. K. Roy, learned Counsel, for the State, referring to the Case Diary brought by him, submits that before lodging an F. I. R. against a public servant, no preliminary enquiry was held by a responsible officer of the department. (10.) IN view of the decision of the Apex Court in the case of P. Sirajuddin etc. (supra) and other decision referred to by Mr. S. S. Roy, learned Counsel, for the petitioner, this Court should pass necessary orders in accordance with law. (11.) I have perused the application including the annexed documents and cases referred to by Mr. Roy, learned Counsel, for the petitioner. It appears that in this case Shovan Kumar Bandyopadhyay, Assistant Superintendent of Post Office, North Calcutta, or any responsible officer of the department did not hold my preliminary enquiry into the allegation before filing an F. I. R. against the petitioner. It further appears that the purchaser of K. V. P. already expired and the total amount of the K. V. P. has been duly disbursed to the nominee. Thus, in view of the decision of the Apex Court in P. Sirajuddin etc. It further appears that the purchaser of K. V. P. already expired and the total amount of the K. V. P. has been duly disbursed to the nominee. Thus, in view of the decision of the Apex Court in P. Sirajuddin etc. (supra), it appears that the F. I. R. lodged by the complainant, Shovan Kumar Bandyopadhyay, without holding any preliminary enquiry into the allegation is bad in law and it should be quashed. (12.) THIS revisional application is, therefore, allowed. The proceedings of G. R. Case No. 3277 of 2006 arising out of Dum Dum P. S. Case No. 264 dated 20. 12. 2006 under Sections 420/468/120 (B)/34 of the Indian Penal Code pending before the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate at Barrackpore, 24-Parganas (North) is hereby quashed. (13.) THIS revisional application is, thus, disposed of.