Back
2010 Supreme(Cal) 247
High Court of Judicature at Calcutta
RAGHUNATH RAY
Samir Kumar Halder
Versus
The State & Another
C.R.R. No. 1974 of 1995
Decided On : 05-03-2010
For the Petitioner:Milan Mukherjee, Saibal Mondal, Advocates. For the State:Kashem Ali Ahmed, Advocate.
The court's inherent power to quash criminal proceedings can be exercised to prevent the abuse of the process of the court, including cases where the investigation is being conducted in a casual and perfunctory manner or where there is no prima facie evidence to support the charges.
Headnote:
CRIMINAL LAW - Quashing of Criminal Proceedings - FIR Alleging Forgery and Cheating - Investigation Pending for Over Two Decades - No Prima Facie Evidence Against Accused - Abuse of Process of Court - Criminal Proceedings Quashed.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner was accused of forgery and cheating in relation to the withdrawal of funds from a bank account. The FIR was lodged in 1986, and the investigation was still pending after more than two decades. The petitioner filed a revision application seeking to quash the criminal proceedings on the grounds that there was no prima facie evidence against him and that the investigation was being conducted in a casual and perfunctory manner.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the allegations in the FIR, even if accepted in their entirety, did not constitute the offences alleged against the petitioner. The court also noted that the investigating agency had failed to collect any credible evidence against the petitioner despite being given ample time to do so. The court further observed that the civil courts had found that the allegations of cheating were not substantiated. Considering these factors, the court held that the investigation was being conducted in an abusive manner and that the criminal proceedings should be quashed.
Issues: 1. Whether the investigation in the criminal case was being conducted in a casual and perfunctory manner. 2. Whether there was any prima facie evidence to establish the ingredients of the offences alleged against the petitioner. 3. Whether the continuation of the criminal proceedings would amount to an abuse of the process of the court.
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that the investigation was being conducted in a casual and perfunctory manner, as it had been pending for over two decades without any substantial progress. 2. The court found that there was no prima facie evidence to establish the ingredients of the offences alleged against the petitioner. 3. The court held that the continuation of the criminal proceedings would amount to an abuse of the process of the court, as it would allow the investigation to continue indefinitely without any reasonable prospect of success.
Final Decision: The court quashed the criminal proceedings arising out of the FIR and directed the discharge of the petitioner from the case.
RAGHUNATH RAY, J
1. On February 17, 1986, one Dilip Kumar Debnath lodged an FIR alleging inter alia that on 23.03.1983 he opened a Savings Account No. 2659 in the Coochbehar branch of UCO Bank by depositing Rs. 20,000/-with the assistance of a clerk attached to the said branch of the Bank. He, thereafter, did not visit the said bank for three years. Subsequently when he sent his brother Sri Shiv Prasad Debnath to update his account with an instruction to deposit Rs. 10/-in the said account, it was detected that almost entire amount leaving a small fraction thereof had already been withdrawn by someone else. It is also contended inter alia that he never withdrew any amount from his account in question earlier. Since S/B Account Pass Book was all along with him, such withdrawal of deposit amounts on different occasions is not possible for any outsider.
2. On the basis of such allegations made in the FIR, Kotwali P.S. Case No. 16 dt. 17.2.86 under sections 468/420 IPC was initiated against some unknown miscreants and the case was endorsed to S.I. S.P. Sarkar DEO(S) CBR for investigation. It is however, a hard reality that investigation / reinvestigation of this ill fated P.S. Case is still pending even after the efflux of almost two decades and half.
3. By filing this revisional application, the accused revisionist has sought to assail continuance of this long pending investigation of Kotwali P.S. Case No. 16 dated17.02.86 under sections 468/420/120B IPC on several grounds. According to him, although in the year 1983, when the account was opened by the de-facto complainant, the petitioner was the Assistant Branch Manager of UCO Bank Coochbehar, in the year 1985 he was transferred, to Howrah. He is, therefore, not involved with the incidents of withdrawal of deposits as alleged. The de-facto complainant also filed money suit no. 5/86 in the court of ld. Assistant District Judge, Coochbehar, against the United Commercial Bank for realisation of Rs. 20000/-alongwith interest thereupon. On the self-same allegations the instant police case was subsequently started on 17.02.86. However, the said money suit was dismissed by the ld. Trial court on contest on 21.11.1988. The said Judgment and order was challenged in Money Appeal No.2 of 1989 and after a contested hearing the suit was sent back on remand on 8.3.90 with a direction to give a chance to the plaintiff for appointment of a hand writing expert to verify the genuineness of signatures in question. So, the revisionist is not connected with the offence u/s. 420 IPC as alleged and has falsely been implicated in this case. His name also does not figure in the FIR. In such circumstances, the criminal proceeding pending before the ld. S.D.J.M. Coochbehar is liable to be quashed.
4. In support of his contention, Mr. Mukherjee, appearing with Mr. Saibal Mondal refers to the following rulings of the Hon’ble Apex Court and argues that the inherent jurisdiction of the High Court can be exercised to quash a criminal proceeding in an appropriate case either to prevent the abuse of the process of any court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice:-
(1) AIR 1960 SC 866 (R. P. Kapur.. Appellant Vs. State of Punjab.. Respondents)
(2) AIR 1982 SC 949 (State of W.B. & Ors… Appellant Vs. Swapan Kr. Guha & Ors… Respondents)
(3) 1998 C Cr. LR (SC) 402 (Ashok Chaturvedi & Ors. Appellants Vs. Situl Chanchani & Anr. Respondents)
He has also relied upon two decisions of this High Court reported in (1) (2004) 2 CAL LT 314 (HC) [Jayanta Saha.. Petitioner v. state of West Bengal. Respondents] & (2) 1992 CRI L.J. 77, [ANZ Grindlays Bank P.I.C. and another.. petitioners v. Shipping and clearing (agents) Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. Respondents] and has further argued that allegations made in the FIR against the revisionist do not constitute an offence u/s. 420 IPC against the revisionist and as such the same cannot stand the test of judicial scrutiny. It is further argued by him that the materials so colle
