Research › Search › Judgment

Calcutta High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 368 (CAL)

Hemanta Kr. Aich v. State of West Bengal

2014-04-22

SUBRATA TALUKDAR

body2014
JUDGMENT : Subrata Talukdar, J. The present criminal revisional application being CRR 2400 of 2013 has been filed by the petitioner praying for quashing of proceedings in connection with Burdwan Sadar P.S. Case no. 423 of 2012 dated 2nd June 2012 corresponding to GR case no.1793 of 2012 under Section 379 of the Indian Penal Code now pending before the Ld. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Burdwan. In the said case chargesheet being no.939 dated 31st December 2012 under Section 379 Indian Penal Code has been filed against the present petitioner and he also prays for quashing of the same. 2. The brief facts of the case are as follows:- a. That the OP 2 was operating a factory for production of puffed rice from the year 1997. The said factory was found to be causing grave environmental pollution. b. Due to such environmental pollution the petitioner, whose house is adjacent to the factory, was put to extreme suffering compelling the petitioner to file a complaint before the Pollution Control Board, West Bengal. c. The Pollution Control Board called a hearing on the issue and , the OP2 having failed to satisfy the Board with regard to possession of valid documents for running the factory, a closure order was issued on the 3rd of December, 2008 by the Board against the factory. d. By further order dated 12.12.2008 in CPAN 87 of 2007 in connection with WP 17498 (W) of 2005 this Court was pleased to direct the Officer-in-Charge, Burdwan P.S. to execute the closure order of the Board dated 3rd December 2008 against the errant factory of the OP 2. e. Thereafter by Order dated 16th February, 2009 the trade license of OP 2 was cancelled. An appeal filed by the OP 2 before the Pollution Control Board is pending. f. The matter has also been carried by the petitioner before the West Bengal Human Rights Commission by a complaint dated 7th August, 2013 and a hearing was held on the 24th of May 2013. The OP2 could not, in support of his contention produce any valid document at the said hearing. 3. Sri Dutta appearing on behalf of the petitioner has argued that the present criminal complaint filed by the OP 2 is in the nature of a counterblast to the proceedings initiated by the petitioner before the Pollution Control Board. The OP2 could not, in support of his contention produce any valid document at the said hearing. 3. Sri Dutta appearing on behalf of the petitioner has argued that the present criminal complaint filed by the OP 2 is in the nature of a counterblast to the proceedings initiated by the petitioner before the Pollution Control Board. He takes this Court to the copy of the complaint dated 2nd June, 2012 filed by the OP 2 against the petitioner before the Inspector-in-charge Burdwan P.S. 4. According to the said complaint dated 2nd June 2012 the OP 2 has alleged that on 1st of June 2012 at about 12.30 pm he was carrying money and valuable papers in a bag when he was accosted by two persons on a motorcycle who had their faces covered. The said two persons blocked the way of the OP 2 and snatched his bag allegedly containing money alongwith important papers. 5. The OP2 in his said complaint dated 2nd July 2012 has further alleged that in view of the fact that he has a long standing enmity with the petitioner over the running of his puffed rice factory and that he is being harassed in several ways by the petitioner on the issue, he suspects the role of the petitioner in the incident of snatching. 6. Sri Dutta further argues that the complaint of the OP 2 dated 2nd June, 2012 does not mention the details of the cash or the valuable papers allegedly snatched from him on 1st June 2012. He asserts that the complaint clearly mentions the fact that the petitioner is only suspected by the OP 2 as having a role in the alleged snatching. According to Sri Dutta, the OP 2 mentions that the reasons for suspecting the petitioner behind the incident of 1st of June 2012 is the long-standing enmity between them over the puffed rice factory of the OP 2. 7. He submits that on the basis of a mere suspicion and in the backdrop of the admitted pendency of proceedings between the parties before the Pollution Control Board and the West Bengal Human Right Commission initiated by the petitioner, the criminal complaint of the OP 2 is false, mischievous and vexatious. The complaint has been merely filed to harass the petitioner for taking lawful steps against the OP 2 in connection with the illegal running of his factory. The complaint has been merely filed to harass the petitioner for taking lawful steps against the OP 2 in connection with the illegal running of his factory. 8. It transpires from the record that the petitioner was granted bail by the Ld. Magistrate on the 19th of February 2013. Chargesheet was filed in the case on the 31st of December 2012. The chargesheet merely reiterates the contents of the complaint that the OP 2 suspected his neighbor, the petitioner as having a hand in the incident of snatching. It is strange that the chargesheet mentions that the petitioner alongwith two other miscreants is absconding, although the petitioner is admittedly the owner of the house adjoining the plot of land of the O P 2 and had appeared before court and prayed for bail. 9. Sri Sanjay Banerjee, Ld. Counsel, appearing on behalf of the State-OP 1 submits that the language of the complaint itself shows that the OP 2 merely suspects the petitioner of having a role in the alleged incident of snatching dated 1st of June 2012. On the basis of mere suspicion and having regard to the background of their inter se relation the subsistence of an unverified criminal complaint against the petitioner may amount to an abuse of the due process of law. 10. Heard the parties. Considered the materials on record. 11. This Court notices that the complaint of the OP 2 is based on a mere suspicion. This Court also notices that the OP 2 has admitted in the complaint that he suspects the petitioner because of the enmity between the parties on the issue of the running of the factory in question. This Court is of the firm view that on the basis of such mere suspicion and in the absence of cogent details of the crime allegedly committed on the 1st June 2012 inasmuch as the OP 2 has been unable to furnish the particulars of the articles stolen, the proceedings in connection with Burdwan Sadar Case no. 423 of 2012 dated 2nd June 2012 corresponding to GR Case no 1793 of 2012 including the chargesheet no. 139 dated 31st December 2012 deserve to be quashed. 12. This Court also notes the perfunctory nature of the chargesheet submitted by Subrata Ghosh, Investigating Officer and then ASI of Police, Burdwan. 13. 423 of 2012 dated 2nd June 2012 corresponding to GR Case no 1793 of 2012 including the chargesheet no. 139 dated 31st December 2012 deserve to be quashed. 12. This Court also notes the perfunctory nature of the chargesheet submitted by Subrata Ghosh, Investigating Officer and then ASI of Police, Burdwan. 13. A perusal of the chargesheet and the statements recorded by the Investigating Officer under Section 161 CrPC echo the complaints contents that the petitioner is suspected behind the incident of 1st June, 2012. The Investigating Officer inspite of showing adequate zeal as revealed in the multiple entries recording his movements on the case, for reasons best known to him failed to explore the details of the property allegedly lost by OP 2 in the snatching from the victim himself as well as apply his mind to the pendency of quasi-civil proceedings between the parties. Even in the face of several doubts on the complicity of the petitioner in the alleged offence, the said Investigating Officer submitted the chargesheet using the expression that prima facie charge has been "well established" against him. This Court is therefore compelled to issue a censure to the said Subrata Ghosh, Investigating Officer and then ASI of Police Burdwan to be more vigilant with regard to the investigation of cases entrusted to him. 14. This Court further directs that the copy of this Order be communicated to the said Subrata Ghosh through the I.G. (Headquarters), Bhabani Bhaban. 15. Registry is directed to communicate this order to the I.G. (Headquarters), Bhabani Bhaban for implementation. 16. CRR 2400 of 2013 is accordingly allowed. In the facts of the present case cost shall be imposed upon the OP 2 of a sum of Rs. 15,000 payable to the petitioner. 17. Urgent certified photocopies of this judgment, if applied for, be given to the learned advocates for the parties upon compliance of all formalities.