Back
2010 Supreme(Cal) 631
High Court of Judicature at Calcutta
ASHIM KUMAR ROY
M/S. Fastners Inc. & Others
Versus
The State
C.R.R. No. 215 of 2010
Decided On : 16-06-2010
For Petitioners:Utpal Majumdar, Advocate.
For State:Swapan Kumar Mullick, Advocate.
FIR quashing is not permissible where the FIR discloses cognizable offences and the alleged facts, if true, constitute an offence.
Headnote:
LAND REFORMS ACT - FIR QUASHING - SECTION 4C, 4D - FIR QUASHING CANNOT BE GRANTED WHERE OFFENCE IS MADE OUT - SHOW CAUSE NOTICE NOT MANDATORY - NO PRIOR HEARING REQUIRED UNDER SECTION 4C - CHANGE IN LAND CHARACTER WITHOUT PERMISSION IS AN OFFENCE UNDER SECTION 4D - FIR LODGING IS NOT BARRED DUE TO LAND ACQUISITION NOTIFICATION.
Fact of the Case:
Petitioners, accused in an FIR for offences under Section 4D of the Land Reforms Act, 1995, sought quashing of the FIR on grounds of suppression of facts, no show cause notice under Section 4C, and no formation of opinion before lodging the FIR.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that quashing of an FIR is permissible only if no offence is made out on the face of the allegations. The court found that the FIR disclosed cognizable offences and that the petitioners' contentions were disputed questions of fact not suitable for determination at this stage.
Issues: 1. Whether the FIR was lodged suppressing facts and without application of mind? 2. Whether show cause notice under Section 4C of the Land Reforms Act was mandatory before lodging the FIR? 3. Whether the FIR was lodged without formation of opinion and was therefore without jurisdiction?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. FIR quashing is permissible only if no offence is made out on the face of the allegations. 2. Show cause notice under Section 4C is not mandatory before lodging an FIR for offences under Section 4D. 3. No prior hearing is required under Section 4C when a person has changed the area or character of land without prior permission.
Final Decision: The court rejected the petitioners' prayer to quash the FIR, holding that the FIR disclosed cognizable offences and that the petitioners' contentions were disputed questions of fact not suitable for determination at this stage.
Based on the provided legal document, the key points are:
-
The court held that quashing an FIR is only permissible if no offence is disclosed on the face of the allegations. Since the FIR in this case disclosed cognizable offences, the petitioners' request for quashing was rejected (!) (!) .
-
The argument that the FIR was lodged without application of mind, suppressing facts, or without a prior show cause notice under Section 4C of the Land Reforms Act was considered a disputed question of fact. Such issues cannot be determined at this stage in a revision petition (!) (!) .
-
The court clarified that no prior hearing or opportunity of hearing is required before lodging an FIR when a cognizable offence is disclosed, especially in cases where the land has been changed in character or use without prior permission, which constitutes an offence under Section 4D of the Land Reforms Act (!) .
-
The issuance of a notification under other land acquisition laws (such as the Land Acquisition Act) does not bar the lodging of an FIR related to offences under the Land Reforms Act, especially when the change in land use or character occurs without compliance with the relevant procedures (!) (!) .
-
The court emphasized that violations concerning unauthorized alteration of land, when established through investigation and statements, constitute cognizable offences under the relevant law, and therefore, the FIR cannot be quashed on the grounds of procedural irregularities or alleged suppression of facts (!) (!) .
-
The court rejected the petitioners' claim that no offence was made out, noting that the allegations of unauthorized alteration of land, which was previously a water body, and the subsequent conversion to solid land by filling, were sufficient to establish a cognizable offence under the relevant provisions (!) .
-
Overall, the court upheld the FIR, stating that it was filed in accordance with law and that the allegations, if true, constitute offences. The petition for quashing was thus dismissed (!) .
Please let me know if you require a more detailed analysis or specific legal advice based on this document.
1. In this criminal revision invoking Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the petitioners who have been arraigned as accused in a FIR relating to offence punishable under Section 4D of the Land Reforms Act, 1995 has moved this Court for quashing of the same.
2. Mr. Utpal Majumdar, the Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners in support of prayer for quashing urged as follows;
(a) The FIR was lodged suppressing the correct facts and without any application of mind.
(b) Before lodging of the FIR no show cause notice as contemplated in Section 4C of the Land Reforms Act was issued nor any opportunity of hearing was afforded to the petitioners.
(c) No person can be prosecuted under Section 4D without he being found to have violated Section 4C of the Act.
(d) Not only no show cause notice was issued but there was also no formation of opinion and the FIR was lodged mechanically, which is not permissible under the law and without jurisdiction.
(e) The petitioner has never changed the character of the land thus there cannot be any question of violation of Section 4C of the said Act and his prosecution under Section 4D of the West Bengal Land Reforms Act.
(f) Only allegation that have been made against the petitioners that they are making attempt to effect alteration of the area, character and mode of use of land.
(g) The FIR should not have been lodged as Land and Land Reforms Department, Land Acquisition Wing on July 15, 2009 issued notification under Section 4 of the West Bengal Land Acquisition Act, 1894 and on October 29, 2009 issued declaration under Section 6 of the said Act in respect of the self same land.
In reply to the submissions of Mr. Majumdar, Mr. Swapan Kumar Mullick for the State vehemently opposed the prayer for quashing and submitted the grounds on which the petitioners are seeking quashing of the impugned FIR are not tenable in law. Mr. Mullick produced the Case Diary and further submitted that sufficient materials have been collected by the police to show the petitioners’ involvement in the commission of the alleged offences.
3. Heard the Learned Counsels appearing on behalf of the parties. Perused the materials on record, as well as the Case Diary.
4. This is a case for quashing of a First Information Report where the investigating has just commenced. The decisions as regards to the quashing of a First Information Report are still uniform. A FIR can be quashed only when it is found on the face of the allegations made therein, and accepting the same to be true no offence is made out.
5. So far as the contention of Mr. Majumdar that FIR was lodged suppressing the correct facts and without any application of mind as well as there was no change in the character of the land are disputed question of facts, which cannot be gone into at this stage by this Court, while exercising its revisional jurisdiction. Now, coming to the next question that before lodging of this FIR no show cause notice as contemplated in Section 4C of the Land Reforms Act was issued nor any opportunity of hearing was afforded to the petitioners and without formation of any opinion the FIR was lodged in a straightway, in my opinion appears to be without any force and has no merit. Information laid before a Station House officer about the commission of any cognizable offence, merely sets the machinery of the investigation in motion, to act in accordance with the procedure established by the law. Either the decision of lodging an information to the police about the commission of any cognizable offence or when such an information discloses commission of cognizable offence, the decision of the investigating agency to register FIR and to cause investigation thereupon, does neither attract principle of natural justice nor requires a pre-decisional hearing. At this stage no accused has any right to claim for an opportunity of hearing either before lodging of FIR or before commencement of investigation. The question o
