Research › Search › Judgment

Calcutta High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 461 (CAL)

Siddhartha Dasgupta v. STATE OF WEST BENGAL

2013-07-17

ASHIM KUMAR ROY

body2013
Judgment : Re: Application under Section 482 read with Section 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure filed on 03.05.2013 This is for quashing of a charge-sheet for an offence punishable under Section 341/323/420/506 of the Indian Penal Code. It appears from the materials-on-record that it is the case of the de facto complainant that the present petitioner took a sum of Rs.1,25,250/- from him on an assurance that by the said amount a Tata Sumo (Spacio) will be purchased and same shall be used in I.T. Sector as pool car. It is the further case of the de facto complainant that although he handed over the entire amount to the accused persons but in spite of his repeated asking the petitioner neither delivered the car nor even had shown him the same. Thereafter one certificate purportedly issued by the Manager, Lexus Motor Limited was produced before him and on enquiry from the person concerned one Siddhartha Dasgupta it was ascertained that although the certificate bears his signature but there was no actual booking as referred therein. It is the further case of the complainant that thereafter he met the accused person at his office and asked him either to deliver the car or to return the money but the accused flatly refused to pay any heed to his request. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that there has been a long delay in making the complaint and the allegations are false and concocted and purely civil in nature being arising out of contractual obligations, therefore, the impugned charge sheet be quashed. In support of his contention, he draws my attention to the various documents annexed with this application for quashing. It is settled position that a criminal case, at the state of charge sheet without trial can be quashed only when the charge sheeted materials on its face value accepting to be correct no offence for which charge-sheet has been submitted can said to have been made out. In other words, the charge-sheet can be quashed only when the materials collected during investigation is lacking of basic ingredients of the offences for which charge-sheet has been submitted. It is the petitioner who has approached this Court for quashing of the charge sheet, therefore onus is on him to show referring the charge sheeted material that the impugned charge sheet is liable to be quashed. It is the petitioner who has approached this Court for quashing of the charge sheet, therefore onus is on him to show referring the charge sheeted material that the impugned charge sheet is liable to be quashed. However, in the case at hand no charge sheeted material is produced before me in support of this application on the other hand, quashing has been sought for on the ground of delay in lodging FIR, claiming the allegations are to be false and alleging that the dispute is purely civil in nature. I have no doubt no charge sheeted materials have been produced obviously because the petitioner has no case to show with reference to charge sheeted materials, the impugned charge sheet is liable to be quashed. Along with this application only the complaint on the basis of which FIR has been recorded is annexed. Going through the same and considering the allegations made therein in my opinion it can hardly be said that no offence has been made out. This criminal revision has no merit accordingly stands dismissed. The office is directed to at once communicate this order to the Court of the learned Judicial Magistrate, 5th Court, Barackpure before whom the G.R. Case No. 3097 of 2008 is pending. The learned Magistrate is directed to proceed with the matter at once in accordance with law without any further delay. I make it clear that I have not gone into the merit of the question of facts taken in this criminal revision and it will remain open to the trial Court to adjust the same in accordance with law and comes to its independent opinion.