SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

1995 Supreme(Cal) 158

High Court Of Calcutta
Nripendra Kumar Bhattacharyya
CHANDER MOHINI KHULLER - Appellant
Versus
STATE OF WEST BENGAL - Respondent
CR. REV.  426  Of  1994
Decided On : 05/08/1995

Advocates Appeared:
C.S.Paul, K.J.SENGUPTA, RABI SANKAR CHATTERJI, SUSHANTA BANERJI

A proceeding under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is maintainable even if it challenges an order taking cognizance and refusing representation by a pleader under Section 205. A proceeding should not be allowed to continue if the allegations in the complaint, even if uncontroverted, do not disclose any offense.

Headnote:

{'KEYWORD': 'Criminal Procedure Code, Section 482', 'SUBJECT': 'Quashing of Criminal Proceedings', 'ACT SECTION LIST': ['Section 397(2), 397(3), 401, 482, 492 of the Code of Criminal Procedure'], 'SUMMARY': 'The Calcutta High Court held that a proceeding under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is maintainable even if it challenges an order taking cognizance and refusing representation by a pleader under Section 205. The court also held that a proceeding should not be allowed to continue if the allegations in the complaint, even if uncontroverted, do not disclose any offense.'}

Fact of the Case:

The petitioner, accused of criminal conspiracy, house trespass, and mischief, challenged the proceedings against her, arguing that the allegations in the complaint did not disclose any offense. The petitioner was a former lessee of the premises in question and had left the premises, but there was no allegation that she had made over possession to the landlord or the trustees.

Finding of the Court:

The court held that the allegations in the complaint, even if uncontroverted, did not disclose any offense against the petitioner. The court found that there was no allegation that the petitioner had vacated the premises or made over possession to the landlord or trustees, and that the allegation of mischief, criminal conspiracy, and house trespass was intertwined with the offense of house trespass, which could not be sustained in the absence of an allegation that the petitioner was not in possession of the property.

Issues: 1. Whether a proceeding under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is maintainable if it challenges an order taking cognizance and refusing representation by a pleader under Section 205? 2. Whether a proceeding should be allowed to continue if the allegations in the complaint, even if uncontroverted, do not disclose any offense?

Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that a proceeding under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is maintainable even if it challenges an order taking cognizance and refusing representation by a pleader under Section 205. The court reasoned that Section 482 allows for the quashing of proceedings, while Sections 397(2), 397(3), and 401 only contemplate the setting aside of orders. 2. The court held that a proceeding should not be allowed to continue if the allegations in the complaint, even if uncontroverted, do not disclose any offense. The court reasoned that the purpose of Section 482 is to prevent abuse of the process of law and that it would be an abuse of process to allow a proceeding to continue if there is no basis for a conviction.

Final Decision: The court allowed the revisional application and quashed the proceedings against the petitioner.

N. K. BHATTACHARYYA, J.

( 1 ) -BY this revision one of the accused persons has challenged the proceeding pending in the Court of the learned 10th Judicial Magistrate, 24-Parganas (South) in complaint case No. C-1526 of 1993 T. R. No. 302 of 1993 and also for setting aside the order of taking cognizance and issuance of process against the accused petitioner and otters under Section 120b, 114 and 448 of the Indian Penal Code passed by the said learned Magistrate by his orders dated 7th September, 1993 and order dated 29th January, 1994 respectively and also rejection of the petition of the petitioner under Section 205 of the Cr. Procedure Code. The relevant facts for the disposal of this application are delenated hereunder : (A)in his petition of complaint the complaint/opposite party No. 2, herein, inter alia, alleged that he is an employee and a representative of "new Road Nyas" a public charitable trust located at Premises No. 1a, Lal Behari Shah Sarani, Calcutta within the jurisdiction of Alipore Police Station. (b)it has further been alleged that the present accused/petitioner was the lessee in respect of the 1st floor of premises No. 1a, Lal Behari Shah Sarani formerly known as New Road, Calcutta and the lease has expired sometime in 1986.

( 2 ) THE accused-petitioner left the premises in 1986 giving illegal possession of the 1st floor of the said building to accused No. 2, Baldeb Chowdhury, who had trespassed into the said 1st floor flat along with some Nepali foreigners and at the instigation of the present accused-petitioner, they are causing mischief to the wooden moveable properties of the said trust such as windows, bathroom fittings, parapet Iron railings etc.

( 3 ) THE trust lodged an FIR before the Alipore Police Station on 19th August, 1993 and as no action was taken on that, a complaint was filed thereafter in the Court of Sub-divisional Judicial Magistrate , Alipore, 24-Parganas (South) by the opposite party No. 2 herein and the learned Sub-divisional Judicial Magistrate after taking cognizance on that application transfer the case to the Court of the learned 10th Judicial Magistrate, Alipore by his order dated 4th September, 1993.

( 4 ) THE ld. Magistrate after perusing the materials on record and considering the initial depositions of the complaint and his witnesses present directed issuance of process against the petitioner herein and other accused-persons under Section 120b, 114 and 448 of the Indian Penal Code by his order dated 7-9-93 and in that Court the case was registered as case No. 1526 of 93 : T. R. Case No. 302 of 1993. Date was fixed for service and appearance on 17-9-93.

( 5 ) ON 21-9-94 the other accused persons, who were on bail, appeared before the Court and a petition was filed on behalf of the accused No. 1, petitioner herein, for being permitted to be represented by her pleader as contemplated under Section 205 of the Criminal Procedure Code.

( 6 ) THE ld. Magistrate fixed 2-3-94 for hearing of that petition and directed the present petitioner to appear before the Court on the next date in default warrant of arrest would be issued.

( 7 ) IT has further been alleged in the revisional petition that earlier the opposite party No. 2 herein made a complaint before the Judicial Magistrate, Alipore against the petitioner and other two persons alleging offence against them under Section 427/403/448/420 of the Indian Penal Code and the case was registered as C-544 of 1993. The learned Magistrate in that case refused to issue any process against the petitioner.

( 8 ) THEREFORE, the opposite party No. 2, herein made another application against the petitioner and other two persons alleging that the accused persons have committed an offence under section 504 of the Indian Penal Code and the learned 3rd Judicial Magistrate, Alipore directed issuance of process against the petitioner and others under Section 504 of the Indian Penal Code by his order dated 16th July, 1994 in case No. C-988 of 1993

















Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top