IN THE HIGH COURT OF CALCUTTA
Rajasekhar Mantha, J.
Protima Dutta - Appellant
Versus
The State Of West Bengal And Others - Respondent
W.P.A. No. 12526 of 2012, CAN 9 of 2021 and CAN 10 of 2022
Decided On : 09-06-2022
JUDGMENT
Rajasekhar Mantha, J. - The questions that arise for consideration in the instant writ petition are, inter alia, whether the High Court, under Article 226 can transfer the investigation from the State Police to Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI), and also order change of prosecutor; after a Division Bench of the High Court, while considering an appeal from an order of acquittal, orders retrial, after applying Section 311 of the Cr.PC.
2. The facts relevant to the instant case are that one Tapan Dutta (husband of the petitioner) who was a prominent member of the ruling party Trinamool Congress, started agitation against the illegal filling up of water bodies in the Bally-Jagacha area in Howrah district. He also formed an association called Bally Jagacha Jalabhumi Bachao Committee to get others to rally behind the cause. The said water bodies were being filled up by a property developer named Anmol South City Ltd., a joint venture between the State Government and certain private persons, inter alia, the Anmol Group of Companies and one Maa Tara Developers. The landfill was being undertaken for the proposed development of an industrial park at Mouja Jagadishpur and Joypur in Howrah district. The petitioner herself was also a supporter of the said ruling party as well, and a member of the local panchayat.
3. On the 6thof May, 2011, the said Tapan Dutta was shot dead at 9:45 pm in the late evening, while he was returning to his house riding a motorcycle. On the same day, FIR No. 205 of 2011 was registered by the Bally Police Station, Howrah, under Sections 302/34/120B IPC read with Sections 27 and 35 of the Arms Act. On that very day i.e. 6th May, 2011, at about 23:25 hrs, one Bablu Prasad, pillion rider on the motorcycle on which the deceased was gunned down, also registered a written complaint.
4. In course of the investigation, when the police visited the writ petitioner, she named 12 persons who were responsible for the death of her husband and also supplied a large number of documents. The said persons being Sasti Gayen, Asit Gayen, Kalyan Ghosh, Gobindo Hazra, Amit Pal Chowdhury, Ajay Pal Chowdhury, Malay Dutta, Panchu Bagani, Lakshmi kanta Haldar, Babu Mondal, Poritosh Bar, Ramesh Mahato and Arup Roy (currently a minister in the State Cabinet).The petitioner informed the police that the actual motive behind the murder of her husband was his opposition to, and agitation against, the landfill. This was confirmed by the petitioner, in writing to the Bally Police Station.
5. On the 13th of June, 2012, the writ petitioner filed WP 12171(W) of 2012 seeking transfer of investigation into Bally Police Station Case No. 205 of 2011 to the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI). Immediately thereafter, on 18th June, 2012, the instant writ petition was filed with the same prayers but giving more particulars. W.P 12171 (w) of 2012 was not pressed thereafter.
6. The investigation was transferred by the State, from the Bally PS to the CID, West Bengal.
7. Initially, a charge sheet was filed on 13th August, 2011, against 5 persons, namely, Subhas Bhowmick, Kartick Das, Ramesh Mahato, Sasti Gayen and Asit Gayen. Subsequently, a supplementary charge sheet was submitted on 26th September, 2011, against two more persons, namely, Santosh Singh and one B. Raju. Additional witnesses were also named. It was specifically mentioned that no charges have been framed against most of the persons named by the petitioner in her written complaint.
8. Sessions Trial No. 88 of 2012 commenced, and judgment was delivered on 7th January, 2015, by the Additional District and Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court-I, Howrah, acquitting all the five accused persons (Subhas Bhowmick, Kartick Das, Ramesh Mahato, Sasti Gayen and Asit Gayen) under Section 235 of the Cr.PC, and the trial against Santosh Singh and B. Raju was deferred as they continued to remain absconding.
9. The Sessions Judge found the following improprieties in the investigation and the prosecution.
(a) R
Ravinder Singh Vs Sukhbir Singh reported in (2013) 9 SCC 245
Rita Nag decision reported in (2009) 9 SCC 129
S.B. Shahane vs. State of Maharashtra
Sakiri Vasu vs. State of UP reported in (2008) 2 SCC 409
Sangeetaben Mahendrabhai Patel vs. State of Gujarat (2012) 7 SCC 621
Shri Kishan Vs Manoj Kumar reported in (1998) 2 SCC 710
State of Punjab vs. CBI (2011) 9 SCC 182
State of W.B. vs. Committee for Protection of Democratic Rights
Subroto Chattoraj vs. Union of India and Ors. reported in (2014) 8 SCC 768
Swapan Kumar Chatterjee [Swapan Kumar Chatterjee vs. CBI
Swapan Kumar Chatterjee vs. CBI, (2019) 14 SCC 328 : (2019) 4 SCC (Cri) 839
U.T. of Dadra & Haveli & Anr V. Fatehsinh Mohansinh Chauhan
Union of India vs. Kirloskar Pneumatic Co. Ltd. reported in (1996) 4 SCC 453
Vinay Tyagi vs. Irshad Ali (2013) 5 SCC 762
Vineet Narain vs. Union of India reported in (1998) 1 SCC 226
VN Patil vs. K. Niranjanreported in (2021) 3 SCC 661
Babu Bhai vs. State of Gujarat (2010) 12 SCC 254
Beg Raj Singh Vs UP reported in (2003) 1 SCC 726
Bhagat Ram vs. State of Rajasthan reported in (1972) 2 SCC 466
Dharam Pal vs. State of Haryana
Disha vs. State of Gujarat reported in (2011) 13 SCC 337
Hasanbhai Valibhai Qureshi vs. State of Gujarat reported in (2004) 5 SCC 347
Mannan Shaikh vs. State of W.B. [Mannan Shaikh vs. State of W.B.
Mithabhai Pashabhia Patel vs. State of Gujarat reported in (2009) 6 SCC 332
National Human Rights Commission vs. State of Gujarat
Nirmal Singh Kahlon vs. State of Punjab
P.N. Bhagwati, J. in Bandhua Mukti Morcha vs. Union of India
Pooja Pal Vs Union of India reported in (2016) 3 SCC 135
Popular Muthiah Vs State reported in (2006) 7 SCC 296
R.K. Roja vs. U.S. Rayudu reported in (2016) 14 SCC 275
Rajaram Prasad Yadav vs. State of Bihar
Rajendra Prasad vs. Narcotic Cell Through Its Officer in-Charge, Delhi
It is no more res integra that exercise of power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash a criminal proceeding is only when an allegation made in the FIR or the charge-sheet constitutes the ingredients of....
Point of law : There is no more res integra that exercise of power under Section 482 CrPC to quash a criminal proceeding is only when an allegation made in the FIR or the charge-sheet constitutes the....
Victim has a fundamental right of fair investigation and fair trial – Mere filing of charge-sheet and framing of charges cannot be an impediment in ordering further investigation/re-investigation/de ....
The complainant's right to seek further investigation under Section 173(8) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, should not be misused by filing repeated applications without fresh material, and t....
When once case is put on trial against the accused and also some of the witnesses have been examined as PWs.1 to 18 and through them documents have been marked respectively, therefore, it cannot aris....
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.