Research › Search › Judgment

Calcutta High Court · body

2020 DIGILAW 59 (CAL)

Manoj Rabidas v. State Of West Bengal

2020-01-15

JAY SENGUPTA

body2020
JUDGMENT Jay Sengupta, J. - This is an application for quashing of a proceeding in which a charge-sheet was submitted under Sections 323, 326, 341, 385 and 506 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. 2. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits as follows. The petitioner used to deal in iron scraps. On a particular day, a police officer from the local police station came to the premises of the petitioner, did not find anything irregular, yet asked the petitioner to meet the Inspector-in-Charge of the police station. When the petitioner went to meet the said Inspector-in-Charge, he threatened them and abused them taking the name of their caste. For this incident that allegedly took place on 7.1.2015, the petitioner lodged a complaint on 9.1.2015. Subsequently, on 8.4.2015, the present FIR was lodged by the defactocomplainant alleging commission of offences under Sections 307, 323, 325, 326, 341, 385 and 506 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 25 and 27 of the Arms Act. The case was absolutely false and the defacto-complainant was hand-picked by the police officer to falsely implicate the petitioner out of previous grudge. A charge-sheet was filed within 15 days. Although the charges under Sections 307 and 326 of the Penal Code and under Sections 25 and 27 of the Arms Act could not even be remotely imputed on the accused, a charge-sheet was submitted under Sections 323, 326, 341, 385 and 506 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. In the meantime, pursuant to a complaint filed by the petitioner against the errant police officers before the National Commission for Schedule Castes, an inquiry report, among other things, mentioned that there was no material under Sections 326 and 385 of the Penal Code in the present case that was started against the petitioner. The Inspector-in-Charge of the police station had a grudge against the petitioner since when he was employed at the License Section and the petitioner had applied for a gun license. In the departmental proceeding, the three police officers including the Investigating Officer of the present case were punished for their devious roles in investigating the instant case. All these showed that the investigation of the case was malafide and tainted. Besides, the injury report of the alleged victim did not indicate any serious assault. In the departmental proceeding, the three police officers including the Investigating Officer of the present case were punished for their devious roles in investigating the instant case. All these showed that the investigation of the case was malafide and tainted. Besides, the injury report of the alleged victim did not indicate any serious assault. Rather, it was clearly stated by the patient that the assault was by fists and flows. The statements recorded under Section 161 were also hearsay in nature. As such, no prima facie is made out against the present petitioner as would be evident from a plain reading of the charge-sheet and the accompanying documents. More particularly, no case whatsoever is made out under Sections 326 and 385 of the Penal Code. 3. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State submits as follows. The statement of the present victim/defacto-complainant clearly makes out a case against the petitioner. From the statement of independent witnesses including neighbours recorded under Section 161 of the Code as contained at pages 7, 8 and 9 of the case diary, it is evident that the petitioner and others came to the land of the defacto-complainant and assaulted them. However, from such statements and the injury report, no element of Section 325 of the Penal Code seems to exist. 4. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the defacto-complainant submits as follows. The investigation conducting in the present case would not become totally bad because of any overenthusiasm or even previous bad blood between the Inspector-in-Charge of the local police station and the accused. There are cogent materials contained in the statements of independent witnesses and the relevant injury report to make out a prima facie against the present petitioner. 5. I have heard the submissions of the learned counsels appearing on behalf of the parties and have perused the revision petition, the supplementary affidavit and the case diary. 6. The inquiry done in respect of wrong doing by three police officers including the investigating officer of the present case, does indicate a bad blood, especially between the Inspector-in-Charge of Police and the accused in the case. A reference was made in the report and in the order that followed that there was no material under Sections 326 and 385 of the Penal Code in the present case. A reference was made in the report and in the order that followed that there was no material under Sections 326 and 385 of the Penal Code in the present case. However, such inferences would not be binding on a criminal court who is in seisin of the present case. It has to be found out independently whether any case is at all made out against the present petitioner or not. 7. From the statements of witnesses recorded under Section 161 of the Code, and more particularly, from the injury report, it does not appear that a case under Section 325 of the Penal Code is at all made out against the accused in the instant case. 8. So far as the allegations under Section 385 read with section 34 of the Penal Code is concerned, no prima facie is made out even from a plain reading of the First Information Report coupled with the other materials. 9. It is germane to mention here that after completion of investigation, the charges under Sections 307 and 326 of the Penal Code and under Sections 25 and 27 of the Arms Act were already dropped. 10. Now, so far as the allegations under Sections 323 and 506 read with Section 34 of the Penal Code are concerned, there are statements of independent witnesses including those of neighbours, which make it clear that such incidents might have happened. These are disputed questions of facts and ought to be tested during trial. 11. In view of the above discussions, I quash the impugned proceeding so far as the charges under Sections 325 and 385 read with Section 34 of the Penal Code are concerned. As regards the other existing charges, the petitioner shall be at liberty to take up all the points raised in this application before the learned trial court. 12. The learned trial court is requested to conclude the trial as expeditiously as possible 13. With these observations, the revisional application is disposed of. 14. Urgent photostat certified copy of this order may be supplied to the parties expeditiously, if applied for.