Back
2006 Supreme(Cal) 733
High Court Of Calcutta
Before Rudrendra Nath Banerjee, J.
NIRMAL KUMAR BHUTORIA - Appellant
Versus
STATE OF WEST BENGAL - Respondent
C. R. R. 3250 Of 2005
Decided On : 11/27/2006
AJAY SHANKAR SANYAL, JAYAMALYA BAGCHI, KAUSHIK CHATTERJI, MILON MUKHERJEE, P.K.DEWAN, SANDIPAN GANGULY, SUDIPTO MOITRA
The power of quashing the proceeding is to be sparingly used and with abundant caution. The court should not interfere in the matter of investigation and quash the proceeding under Section 482, CrPC, when the investigation has already started.
Headnote:
FORGERY - FIR - QUASHING OF PROCEEDING - Section 120B/467/468/420/506 (ii), IPC - Section 156 (3), CrPC - Whether the entire proceeding is liable to be quashed as bad in law when the FIR is not registered on the earlier letter of complaint disclosing the alleged offense of forgery?
Fact of the Case:
The de facto complainant, Kusum Bhutoria, filed a complaint against Nirmal Kumar Bhutoria, alleging that he had forged her signature on bank papers to secure a loan from Tamilnad Bank Limited. The police drew up an FIR based on the complaint and started an investigation. The de facto complainant then filed a complaint case before the Court of the learned Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Calcutta, for the alleged offenses under Section 420/406/467/468/471/120B of IPC against Nirmal Kumar Bhutoria and others. The Court called for a report from the Police Station, which reported that the FIR had already been drawn up and the investigation had been started. The petitioner, Nirmal Kumar Bhutoria, filed a revisional application under Section 482, CrPC, for quashing the proceeding before the learned Court below.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the defense could not be said to have been prejudiced by the investigation by the police upon the single FIR drawn on the basis of the letter of complaint dated 26th August 2005 read with the letter of complaint dated 27th July 2005. The court further held that the police did not draw the FIR upon one of those letters of complaint ignoring the other. If the police do not register any case upon the earlier letter of complaint or make any delay to do the same, the de facto complainant cannot be made to suffer.
Issues: Whether the entire proceeding is liable to be quashed as bad in law when the FIR is not registered on the earlier letter of complaint disclosing the alleged offense of forgery?
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the power of quashing the proceeding is to be sparingly used and with abundant caution. The court further held that the investigation having already started, the Court should not interfere in the matter of investigation and quash the proceeding under Section 482, CrPC.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the revisional application.
( 1 ) THIS revisional application under Section 482, Cr. P. C. is for quashing the proceeding in G. R. No. 1170 of 2005 pending before the learned Additional chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Calcutta arising out of Burrabazar Police Station case No. 203 dated 29th September, 2005 under Section 120b/467/468/420/ 506 (ll) of the Indian Penal Code.
( 2 ) THE aforesaid P. S. case was on the FIR drawn up by police at the police station on the de facto complainant's complaint dated August 26, 2005 before the Officer-in-Charge Barabazar Police Station against Sri Nirmal Kumar bhutoria read with the complaint dated 27th July, 2005.
( 3 ) THE de facto complainant Kusum Bhutoria lodged the written, complaint dated 27th July, 2005 before the Officer-in-Charge, Burrabazar Police station against Sri Nirmal Kumar Bhutoria with the allegation that the said Nirmal kumar Bhutoria put the defacto complaint's signature on the partnership declaration form, the authorisation letter dated 5th October, 2004 and the account opening form and other Bank papers for securing a loan from Tamilnad Bank limited situated at Ganesh Market Building (2nd floor), 58/d, Netaji Subhas road, Kolkata -1. The loan was secured in the name of the firm M/s. Kesharichand Cjattarsingh of which the said Nirmal Kumar Bhutoria and Kusum bhutoria both were partners along with three others. The said Kusum Bhutoria intimated the matter to the said Bank by letter dated 4th March, 2005 and upon the Bank's instruction he sent a representative to check the Bank papers and being sure that her signatures were forged in the Bank papers lodged such complaint before the Officer-in-Charge of Burrabazar Police Station.
( 4 ) THE police having not started any case for the alleged forgery by the accused petitioner Nirmal Kumar Bhutoria the de facto complainant Kusum bhutoria again wrote to the Officer-in-Charge of the Burrabazar Police Station by her letter dated 26th August, 2005 making the same allegation against the accused Nirmal Kumar Bhutoria alleging that he had forged her signature in the bank for securing loan of Rs. 24,50,000/- for the firm. In the letter the details of the offence alleged and also some other allegations of Criminal intimidation were made.
( 5 ) UPON such allegations made in both the petitions of complaint the officer-in-Charge, Burrabazar Police Station drew up the FIR No. 203 dated 29th September, 2005 against Nirmal Kumar Bhutoria and three others.
( 6 ) THE de facto complainant again filed complaint case being No. C/776/05 before the Court of learned Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, calcutta for alleged offences under Section 420/406/467/468/471/120b of I. P. C. against Nirmal Kumar Bhutoria and others. It was prayed that the said complaint be referred to the Burrabazar Police Station for investigation under Section 156 (3), Cr. P. C. But learned Court called for a report from the Police Station and it was reported by Police that the FIR has already been drawn up and investigation has been started upon the letter of complaint dated 26th August, 2005 read with letter dated 27th July, 2005.
( 7 ) MR. Jaymalya Bagchi, Advocate appearing for the petitioner has contended that the said FIR being not registered on the earlier letter of complaint dated 27th July, 2005 disclosing the alleged offence of forgery, the entire proceeding is liable to be quashed as bad in law.
( 8 ) MR. Jaymalya Bagchi, Advocate cited the decision reported in 2001 cr LJ 3329 (T. T. Antony v. State of Kerala and Ors.) in support of his contention that when two complaints have been lodged before police the police cannot choose one of them but is to draw up the FIR on the earlier one. In the cited decision two FIRs were drawn up by police over the selfsame occurrence, the earlier complaint being a telegram or phone call and the subsequent are being a concrete and a written one making the selfsame allegation. But here in the present case in our h
