Back
2019 Supreme(Cal) 461
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT CALCUTTA
MADHUMATI MITRA, J.
Bhagirath Agarwal @ Bhagirath Prosad Agarwal - Petitioner
Versus
The State of West Bengal - Respondent
C.R.R. No. 1357 of 2015
Decided On : 17-07-2019
Advocate Appeared:
For the Petitioner:Sandipan Ganguly, Senior Advocate, Sumanta Ganguly, Advocate.
For the Respondent:Rana Mukherjee, Ld. Addl. P.P., Pratick Bose, Advocate.
The temporary disconnection of water did not amount to mischief as defined in Section 425 of the Indian Penal Code, and the continuation of the criminal proceeding would amount to an abuse of the process of the court.
Headnote:
Abuse of Process - Criminal Proceeding - Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, Section 430, Indian Penal Code, Section 425 - The court quashed the criminal proceeding against the accused under Section 430 of the Indian Penal Code, citing that the temporary disconnection of water did not amount to mischief as defined in Section 425 of the Indian Penal Code. The court found that the continuation of the criminal proceeding would amount to an abuse of the process of the court and exercised discretion under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to quash the proceedings.
Fact of the Case:
The accused, a director of a property company, was charged under Section 430 of the Indian Penal Code for allegedly disconnecting the water supply to a building. The accused argued that the criminal proceeding was initiated maliciously and did not constitute the alleged offence.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the temporary disconnection of water did not amount to mischief as defined in Section 425 of the Indian Penal Code. It also concluded that the continuation of the criminal proceeding would amount to an abuse of the process of the court.
Issues: The issues revolved around whether the allegations constituted an offence under Section 430 of the Indian Penal Code and whether the continuation of the criminal proceeding would amount to an abuse of the court's process.
Ratio Decidendi: The court applied the principles laid down by the Supreme Court in State of Haryana and Others Vs. Ch. Bhajan Lal and Others and R.P.Kapur Vs. State of Punjab to exercise its power under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to prevent abuse of the process of the court.
Final Decision: The court allowed the criminal revisional application and quashed the criminal proceeding and charge-sheet under Section 430 of the Indian Penal Code.
JUDGMENT :
1. Petitioner being the accused of G.R.Case No.1285 of 2007 arising out of Shakespeare Sarani Police Station Case No. 131 of 2007 dated 06.06.2007 has approached before this Court for quashing of the said proceedings pending before the Learned Metropolitan Magistrate, 20th Court, Calcutta.
Facts
2. Which are essential to consider the prayer of the petitioner for quashing of the criminal proceeding pending against him are as under:-
Opposite party no.2, Mr. T. Parthasarathy, Defence Estates Officer, Kolkata Circle, of Ministry of Defence, Office of the D.E.O. Kolkata Circle, 13, Camac Street, Kolkata-700 017, on 06.06.2007 lodged a written complaint with the officer-in-charge at Shakespeare Sarani Police Station.
3. Accused/petitioner is one of the Directors of Tara Properties Pvt. Ltd. which is the owner of the property situated 13, Camac Street, Kolkata- 700017. On the basis of the complaint lodged by Mr. T. Parthasarathy, Shakespeare Sarani Police Station Case No.131 dated 06.06.2007, was initiated against the petitioner for commission of the alleged offence punishable under Section 430 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. It was alleged in the said F.I.R. that the petitioner deliberately disconnected/stopped the supply of water to the 6th, 7th, 8th and 9th floor of 13, Camac Street, Gagan Tara Building.
4. After completion of investigation, charge-sheet was submitted against the petitioner for commission of alleged offence under Section 430 of the Indian Penal Code.
5. From the materials placed on record as well as from the submission made by the Learned Counsel for the parties it appears that Tara Properties Pvt. Ltd. is the owner of the 6th, 7th, 8th and 9th floor of the building comprising of an area of 23,224 sq.ft. and the said area was leased out to the Govt. of India, Department of Defence in the year 1971. Several disputes of civil nature are pending in between the accused/petitioner and the said tenant regarding leased out of property.
6. It has been contended by the Learned Advocate for the petitioner, that the criminal proceeding has been initiated against the petitioner maliciously out of private and personal grudge. He has further argued that the allegations contained in the written complaint do not constitute the commission of alleged offence under Section 430 of the Code of Criminal Procedure as the ingredients of the said offence are not present either in the written complaint or in the materials collected during the course of investigation.
7. On the other hand, Learned Additional Public Prosecution for State has contended that the averments of the written complaint disclose the commission of alleged offence under Section 430 of the Indian Penal Code and the involvement of the petitioner in the alleged crime. He has further contended that all the essential requirements of offence under Section 430 of the Indian Penal Code are present and the materials collected during investigation support the existence of prima facie case against the petitioner.
8. The petitioner has prayed for quashing of the criminal proceeding pending against him under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The parameters of jurisdiction of High Court in exercising its jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is now well settled.
9. In this connection, I would like to mention a decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of Haryana and Others Vs. Ch. Bhajan Lal and Others reported in AIR 1992 SC 604.
10. In paragraph 108, the illustrations are as follows:-
1. "Where the allegations made in the FIR or the complaint, even if they are taken at their face value and accepted in their entirely do not prima facie constitute any offence or make out a case against the accused;
2. Where the allegations in the FIR and other materials, if any, accompanying the FIR do not disclose a cognizable offence, justifying an investigation by Police Officers under Section 156(1) of the Code except under an order of a Magistrate
