Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT CALCUTTA
SHIVAKANT PRASAD, J.
Mukul Roy - Petitioner
Vs.
The State of West Bengal & Ors. - Respondents
CRR 730, 731, 732, 733, 734, 735, 736, 737, 738, 1253, 1233, 1470 of 2018 with CRAN 1428 of 2018
Decided On : 20-07-2018
CRIMINAL BREACH OF TRUST - CHEATING - SANCTION FOR PROSECUTION - DELAY IN LODGING FIR - JURISDICTION OF MAGISTRATE - POWER OF HIGH COURT TO QUASH PROCEEDINGS - PRINCIPLES.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, a former Minister of Railways, was accused of criminal breach of trust and cheating in connection with alleged irregularities in the allotment of railway jobs. The FIRs were filed six years after the alleged incident, and the petitioner argued that the delay was unexplained and that the proceedings were politically motivated. The Magistrate had ordered the registration of FIRs and investigation under Section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) without applying his mind to the facts of the case.
Finding of the Court:
The High Court quashed the proceedings against the petitioner, holding that the Magistrate had failed to apply his judicial mind and had acted in a mechanical manner in ordering the registration of FIRs and investigation. The Court found that there was an inordinate delay in lodging the FIRs, which was unexplained, and that the allegations against the petitioner were false and politically motivated. The Court also held that the Magistrate had erred in not considering the requirement of prior sanction for prosecution under Section 197 of the CrPC, as the alleged offences were committed by the petitioner in discharge of his official duties.
Issues: 1. Whether the Magistrate had applied his judicial mind in ordering the registration of FIRs and investigation under Section 156(3) of the CrPC? 2. Whether the delay in lodging the FIRs was unexplained and whether the proceedings were politically motivated? 3. Whether the Magistrate had erred in not considering the requirement of prior sanction for prosecution under Section 197 of the CrPC?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The Magistrate had failed to apply his judicial mind and had acted in a mechanical manner in ordering the registration of FIRs and investigation. The Court found that the Magistrate had not considered the facts of the case, had not verified the truth of the allegations, and had not applied the principles laid down by the Supreme Court in Priyanka Srivastava v. State of U.P. (2015) 6 SCC 287. 2. The delay in lodging the FIRs was unexplained, and the allegations against the petitioner were false and politically motivated. The Court found that the FIRs had been filed six years after the alleged incident, and that there was no explanation for the delay. The Court also found that the allegations against the petitioner were based on hearsay and were not supported by any evidence. 3. The Magistrate had erred in not considering the requirement of prior sanction for prosecution under Section 197 of the CrPC, as the alleged offences were committed by the petitioner in discharge of his official duties. The Court found that the petitioner was a Minister of Railways at the time of the alleged incident, and that the alleged offences were related to his official duties.
Final Decision: The High Court quashed the proceedings against the petitioner, holding that the Magistrate had failed to apply his judicial mind and had acted in a mechanical manner in ordering the registration of FIRs and investigation. The Court also held that the Magistrate had erred in not considering the requirement of prior sanction for prosecution under Section 197 of the CrPC.
SHIVAKANT PRASAD, J.
1. The petitioner has approached this Court for quashing of proceedings being G.R. Case No. 1331 of 2018; G.R. Case No. 1332 of 2018; G.R. Case No. 1333 of 2018; G.R. Case No. 1334 of 2018; G.R. Case No. 1335 of 2018; G.R. Case No. 1336 of 2018; G.R. Case No. 1337 of 2018; G.R. Case No. 1338 of 2018 and G.R. Case No. 1370 of 2018 arising out of Bizpore Police Station Case No. 161 of 2018; No. 162 of 2018; No. 163 of 2018; No. 164 of 2018; No. 165 of 2018; No. 166 of 2018; No. 167 of 2018; No. 168 of 2018 and No. 169 of 2018 all dated 12.3.2018 under Sections 420/406 of the Indian Penal Code respectively and direction dated 09.3.2018 passed by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Barrackpore, North 24-Parganas in M.P. Case No. 456 of 2018; No. 457 of 2018; No. 458 of 2018; No. 459 of 2018; No. 461 of 2018; No. 460 of 2018; No. 462 of 2018; No. 470 of 2018 and No. 469 of 2018 respectively pending in the Court of learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Barrackpore, North 24 Parganas thereby directing the Inspector-in-charge, Bizpore Police Station to treat the applications under Section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure as the FIRs and start investigation.
Re : CRR 1253 of 2018; CRR 1233 of 2018 and CRR 1470 of 2018
2. Whereas in the aforesaid three revisional cases the petitioner has also approached this Court for quashing of proceedings being G.R. Case No. 8471 of 2017 arising out of Jagatdal Police Station Case No. 1561 of 2017 dated 25.12.2017 under Sections 420/406 of the Indian Penal Code; G.R. Case No. 2643 of 2018 arising out of Naihati Police Station Case No. 335 of 2018 dated 15.5.2018 under Sections 420/406/468/471/34 of the Indian Penal Code and G.R. Case No. 3204 of 2018 arising out of Noapara Police Station Case No. 192 of 2018 dated 03.6.2018 under Sections 420/406/467/468/471/472/120B/34 of the Indian Penal Code pending before the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Barrackpore, North 24 Parganas.
3. All the above mentioned cases have been heard as the issue involved in all the cases are common, the same may be disposed of by a common judgment.
4. At the outset, Mr. Paramjit Singh Patwalia learned senior counsel for the petitioner at the outset submitted that the learned Magistrate has acted in a mechanical and laconic manner and the same is apparent from the fact that the Learned Magistrate merely filled up the blanks in a previously typed out order sheet which is wholly illegal in view of Rule 183 of Calcutta High Court Criminal (Subordinate Courts) Rules 1985.
5. Secondly, it has been argued that the purported allegations in First Information Report relate to the year 2012 whereas the application under Section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure was filed as late as on 09.3.2018 without any explanation as to inordinate delay in filing application under Section 156(3) of the Code. Thus, it demonstrates the frivolity and malafide in the initiation of the impugned proceeding by the opposite party no. 2 against the petitioner.
6. Thirdly, Mr. Patwalia invited my attention to the fact that the petitioner was the Minister of Railways in the Union Cabinet on and from April, 2012. However, no prior sanction under Section 197 Cr.P.C. was obtained for prosecution as required under Section 156(3) of the Code before registering the First Information Report against the petitioner.
7. Fourthly, it is submitted for the sake of argument that even if the allegation in the First Information Report is believed to be true, it is not the case of the Opposite Party No. 2 that he handed over any money to the petitioner. Therefore, roping the petitioner as an accused clearly appears to be an abuse of the process of criminal law to harass and humiliate the petitioner.
8. The petitioner further submitted that even if the allegation in the First Information Report is believed to be true, it would appear that the Opposite Party No. 2 parted with money to discreetly and illegal
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
