Research › Browse › Judgment

Supreme Court of India · body

2024 DIGILAW 1234 (SC)

State of West Bengal v. Moitry Dana

2024-12-02

SURYA KANT, UJJAL BHUYAN

body2024
ORDER : 1. Delay condoned. 2. Leave granted. 3. The State of West Bengal assails the judgment and order dated 05.08.2024 passed by a learned Single Judge of the High Court at Calcutta, whereby D.R. Case No. 2812/2022 arising out of Kalyani Police Station Case No. 241/2022 dated 20.05.2022 and all the proceedings arising therefrom have been quashed, primarily on the ground that prior sanction under Section 17-A of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (in short the “P.C. Act) as amended vide Act 16 of 2018, was not obtained. 4. It may be mentioned that the above-mentioned criminal case was registered under Sections 406, 420, 120B/34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and Sections 7/7A/8/11/13 of the P.C. Act. The proceedings arising therefrom, which the High Court has quashed, were pending in the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge, IV Court, Krishnanagar, Nadia-cum-learned Special Court (Prevention of Corruption Act). 5. Respondent no. 2 is a Member of the State Legislative Assembly, whereas respondent no. 1 is his daughter. A notice was served on respondent no. 1 under Section 160 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (in short, the “Cr.P.C.”) requiring her to appear before the Inspector of Police, Economic Offences Wing, CID, West Bengal in relation to the above-mentioned case. She enquired about the reasons of her summoning, but on being denied such information, respondent no. 2 approached the High Court. Pursuant to the directions issued therein, the requisite information was supplied to her. Thereafter, both, respondent nos. 1 and 2, approached the High Court seeking quashing of the subject-FIR and the consequential proceedings emanating therefrom. 6. It is revealed that the Central Government established All India Institute of Medical Sciences (AIIMS) at Kalyani (West Bengal). Respondent no. 1 was appointed on contractual basis to work as Data Entry Operator on the recommendations made by a Union Minister. It appears that the recruitment in AIIMS was eventually the subject-matter of investigation, whereupon the subject-FIR came to be registered. 7. Since respondent nos. 1 and 2 were also implicated in that case, they approached the High Court through CRR No. 2857/2022 invoking powers of the High Court under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. to quash the FIR and the proceedings qua them. As noticed, at the outset, the High Court has accepted their claim primarily on the ground that respondent no. Since respondent nos. 1 and 2 were also implicated in that case, they approached the High Court through CRR No. 2857/2022 invoking powers of the High Court under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. to quash the FIR and the proceedings qua them. As noticed, at the outset, the High Court has accepted their claim primarily on the ground that respondent no. 2, being a Public Representative, the requisite prior permission under Section 17-A of P.C. Act ought to have been mandatorily obtained before nominating respondent nos. 1 and 2 as the accused persons. 8. It is in this backdrop that we have heard learned senior counsels on behalf of the appellant-State as well as on behalf of respondent nos. 1 and 2 and perused the record. 9. We may hasten to add that respondent nos. 1 and 2 have also approached this Court by way of a separate special leave petition, as according to them, the subject criminal proceedings are liable to be quashed against them on various other grounds as well, in addition to their plea of non-compliance of Section 17-A, which has been accepted by the High Court. 10. Having heard learned senior counsel for the parties at a considerable length and on perusal of the record, it seems to us that the matter requires a fresh consideration by the High Court. Since we are inclined to relegate the parties before the High Court, it may not be expedient or desirable to express any opinion on the merits of the case. Suffice it to observe that the issue as to whether Section 17-A of P.C. Act, in the facts and circumstances of this case will be attracted or not, is a debatable issue. However, we need not say anything more as the parties would assist the High Court on this issue. We are also of the view that, assuming Section 17-A of P.C. Act is held to be inapplicable, in that case, respondent nos. 1 and 2 would be at liberty to invoke other grounds that they have taken to seek quashing of the criminal proceedings against them. 11. It, however, seems to us that the impugned judgment of the High Court cannot be sustained. The same is, accordingly, set aside. The matters are remitted to the High Court for a fresh adjudication. 1 and 2 would be at liberty to invoke other grounds that they have taken to seek quashing of the criminal proceedings against them. 11. It, however, seems to us that the impugned judgment of the High Court cannot be sustained. The same is, accordingly, set aside. The matters are remitted to the High Court for a fresh adjudication. Keeping in view the nature of the issues involved and the likely impact on various other accused/suspects, we request the Hon’ble Chief Justice of the High Court to list the matter before a Division Bench of the High Court. 12. The parties are directed to appear before the High Court on 20.12.2024. 13. As an interim measure, it is directed that, subject to respondent nos. 1 and 2 joining and fully cooperating with the ongoing investigation, their arrest shall remain stayed till the High Court passes appropriate orders on the interim relief. 14. The appeals are, accordingly, disposed of.