The court reiterated that the exercise of power to quash a criminal proceeding is only warranted when the allegations in the FIR or charge-sheet constitute the ingredients of the alleged offence. The court also emphasized that the evidence produced by the accused in their defense cannot be considered at the initial stage of criminal proceedings.

JUDGMENT

Ajoy Kumar Mukherjee, J. - The present revisional application has been directed for quashing the impugned FIR being Kalighat Police Station Case No.94 of 2020 and the on going proceeding registered as CGR Case No.2304 of 2020 initiated on the basis of the FIR, lodged by opposite party no.2 /defacto complainant Rajiv Sarkar.

2. The defacto complainant moved an application under Section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate at Alipore being No.53 of 2020 and upon considering the said application, learned Magistrate was pleased to direct the Officer-in-Charge of the Kalighat Police Station to start investigation treating the petition of complaint as FIR.

3. Pursuant to the said direction, the aforesaid Kalighat Police Station Case No.94 of 2020 corresponding to CGR Case No.2304 of 2020 was initiated. The present petitioner is acquainted with the accused no.1 Sikha Biswas during her college life and initial service life and after passing out from the college, she started residing as a tenant under the landlordship of the petitioner. The accused no.1 as a Bengalee lady used to address the petitioner as her Dada (elder brother) and petitioner never claimed nor represented himself to be a full blooded brother or kin and kith of the accused nos.1 and 2.

4. Sometime in the year 2015, accused no.1 Sikha had surrendered the tenancy at the premises and since then the petitioner did not have any touch with the accused no.1 except some rare occasions. The petitioner does not have any personal acquaintance with the defacto complainant. However, he has come to know about the defacto complainant through the accused no.1 Sikha as the husband of the accused no.1. The petitioner has been falsely implicated in the criminal proceeding which has arisen out of a matrimonial dispute between the defacto complainant Rajiv and accused no.1.Sikha. In the written complaint, defacto complainant has allegedly canvassed a matrimonial dispute with accused no.1 and also canvassed an alleged story of the participation of the petitioner who has merely a formal acquaintance with the accused no.1 in affairs relating to negotiation of marriage between the defacto complainant and the accused no.1. The defacto complainant has further canvassed a concocted story whereby he has alleged that the petitioner participated in torturing the mother of the defacto complainant.

5. It is further alleged against the petitioner that the petitioner herein involved in a racket and the petitioner had allegedly threatened the defacto complainant to kill by administering spurious substances.

6. It is further submitted that the petitioner is neither family member of the accused no.1 Sikha nor has any relationship with her and the acquaintance between the petitioner and the accused no.1 is a very formal one. The defacto complainant is a police officer attached in the Kolkata Police Force and possibly on account of his matrimonial discord, he has started the vindictive criminal proceeding against the accused no.1, where the petitioner has been made a scapegoat. As the parties are residing separately, there is no chance of inflicting torture by the present petitioner upon the mother of defacto complainant. The petitioner was neither a witness to the matrimony of the accused no.1 nor a participant in the alleged forgery of court document as claimed by the defacto complainant. Therefore, arraying the petitioner as an accused in the aforesaid complaint can be safely inferred with some malicious intent on the part of the defacto complainant. The allegations made out against the petitioner in the complaint under reference do not constitute of an offence either under the general penal laws or under any special enactment and as such, the criminal proceeding against the present petitioner is vexatious and harassive and the impugned FIR is based on surmise and conjecture and also inherently improbable and absurd and for which the FIR being Kal