2005(4) Crimes 247 (Cal.)
CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
Sailendra Prasad Talukdar, J.
Ashok Roy—Petitioner
versus
C.B.I., A.C.B., Calcutta—Respondent
C.R.R. No. 2293 of 2003
Decided on 21-4-2005

IMPORTANT POINT
No doubt, inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. is quite wide but must be exercised sparingly and certainly with care and caution. It must be exercised (i) to give effect to an order under the Code (ii) to prevent abuse of the process of Court and (iii) to otherwise secure the ends of justice.

Headnote:Indian Penal Code, 1860—Section 120B read with Sections 348/330/306/465/471—Criminal Procedure Code—Section 401 r/ws 482—Police custodial death —Framing of charges—Victim taken into custody—Subjected to severe physical torture—Protest by wife of victim but of no use—Victim taken to his house for search but no stolen articles were recovered—Wife’s complaint was not recorded by the police—Victim committed suicide in the jail—Complaint by wife over custodial death as a result of torture and maltreatment—Police investigation—Report by the Inspector of the West Bengal Human Rights Commission—Case referred to Central Bureau of Investigation for report—Cognizance was taken on the basis of CBI report—Case committed to the Sessions Court and charges were framed against the petitioner and one another—Petition for setting aside order of framing charges on plea that CBI while investigating case had not taken into proper consideration, enquiry report of West Bengal Human Rights Commission—Since Trial Court while framing charge took into consideration all relevant materials, no sope for giving weight to finding of enquiry held by Human Rights Commission—As there being sufficient prima facie material so as to justify framing of charge against petitioner, learned Trial Court directed to proceed with trial of case on priority basis.

       Facts of the Case :

       A.The complainant, a poor woman was going with her husband when the police constable obstructed their path and forcibly took her husband to the police station where he was beaten mercilessly on various parts of the body. Although wife went to the police station and objected to it, but she was made to keep quiet. Complainant’s husband was brought to his house and search was made to find out the stolen articles, but nothing could be found by the police.

       B.The complainant went to the police station to lodge FIR but it was not accepted. She reported to the Distt. Magistrate and the Superintendent of Police. However in the meantime, she came to know that her husband had committed suicide in jail.

       C.The matter when enquired into by the West Bengal Human Rights Commission, conclusion of enquiry was that some people attached to the jail were responsible for the premature death of complainant’s husband.

       D.Thereafter, the Hon’ble High Court transferred the case to Central Bureau of Investigation and on the basis of their report, cognizance was taken. The case was committed to the Court of Sessions and charges were framed against the petitioner and one another.

       E.Present application has been filed by petitioner praying for setting aside of the said order of framing the charges on the plea that the materials on record not justified the guilt of the accused. Petitioner also pleaded that the report of West Bengal Human Rights Commission was not taken into proper consideration while framing of charge.

       F.Findings of the Court : While exercising jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, it is not permissible for the Court to act as if it was a Trial Court. Even when charge is framed at that stage, the Court has to only prima facie be satisfied about existence of sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused. The Court can certainly evaluate materials and documents on record but cannot appreciate evidence. As Ld. Trial Court while framing charge had taken into consideration all relevant materials which included the materials disclosed in the course of investigation, held that there was no scope for giving weight to finding of enquiry held under the order of Human Rights Commission.

       G.Result : In the result application was dismissed and Trial Court was directed to proceed with trial of case on priority basis.