IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
SHAMPA DUTT (PAUL), J.
Arindam Mukherjee - Appellant
Versus
Jagannath Das - Respondent
CRR. No. 597 of 2019
Decided On : 20-03-2023
ABUSE OF PROCESS OF LAW - Criminal Proceedings - Indian Penal Code - Sections 323/325/379/354/506/120B/34 - Summary
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, a Block Development Officer, sought to quash criminal proceedings against him, alleging that the complaint was baseless and a misuse of criminal law. The petitioner was accused of assaulting and molesting a group during an official meeting. The court considered the petitioner's official duty, the nature of the alleged incident, and relevant legal provisions.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the petitioner's actions did not constitute the alleged offenses and that the proceedings were an abuse of the legal process. The court also noted the technicality of the warrant issued against the petitioner and the lack of evidence to support the allegations.
Issues: The issues involved the petitioner's official duty, the nature of the alleged incident, and the abuse of legal process.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the petitioner's actions did not align with the alleged offenses and that the proceedings were an abuse of the legal process. The court also considered the technicality of the warrant issued against the petitioner and the lack of evidence to support the allegations.
Final Decision: The court allowed the revision, quashed the criminal proceedings, and held that the warrant against the petitioner was an abuse of the legal process. The court emphasized the lack of evidence and the petitioner's official duty in reaching this decision.
JUDGMENT
The present revision has been preferred praying for quashing of the proceedings pending in connection with Complaint Case No. C-668/2018 under Sections 323/325/379/354/506/120B/34 of the Indian Penal Code now pending before the Court of the Learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Basirhat, North 24 Parganas and all orders passed in connection therewith including order dated 08.02.2019 whereby the Learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Basirhat was pleased to issue warrant of arrest against the accused person, petitioner herein under Sections 323/325/379/354/506/120B/34 of the Indian Penal Code.
The petitioner’s case is that the petitioner herein is a Block Development Officer (B.D.O.). The petitioner joined the West Bengal Civil Services in the year 1994 and was posted as a Revenue Officer in the Land and Land Reforms Department. Thereafter the petitioner was promoted as an Executive Officer in the 2015. The Petitioner has also been serving as the Block Development Officer (B.D.O.) of the Hasnabad for last one and a half year.
The petitioner’s further case is that Jagannath Das (herein after referred as the opposite party) filed a complaint case under Section 200 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, before the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Basirhat and which was subsequently registered as Complaint Case No: C-668/2018 under Sections 323/325/379/354/506/120B/34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.
The allegations as leveled in the said complaint, inter alia, were to the effect that the opposite party is General Secretary of “Shramajivi Samannay” Committee, located at Taki, Basirhat, North 24 Parganas. That on 12.10.2018 on behalf of the committee an appointment was asked for from the Block Development Officer, (hereinafter referred as the B.D.O.) Hasnabad to consult regarding the submission of a mass deputation regarding a matter of public interest. Accordingly the B.D.O. decided the appointment to be on 01.11.2018 at 1 pm in the afternoon. On the said date the opposite party with four other representatives of the committee and around 500 people of which many women gathered in the office of the B.D.O. with some important documents. After reaching there the opposite party saw that there are many unknown people. The B.D.O. introduced them as representative of the Panchayat Samity. The unknown people asked the opposite party about his purpose of visit and knowing that the opposite party was there to submit a deputation they thwarted the way and abused them in filthy language. The B.D.O. informed that no deputation will be taken, and also rejected the idea of a meeting. When the opposite party protested to that, the unknown people present there along with the B.D.O. and the S.I Mrinal Pal threatened them with dire consequences and told them to leave. The opposite party and his people refused to do the same, to which, under the instruction of the B.D.O. they started assaulting the opposite party and others with fists and blows and also snatched away some important documents. Even more, under the instruction of the B.D.O., women from the group of the opposite party were molested and abused in filthy languages; they also tried to choke witness no. 5 (as mentioned in the complaint).
The opposite party informed about the incident in Hasnabad Police Station but no F.I.R was registered. Later the same information was forwarded to the Sub-Divisional Officer, Basirhat, Superintendent of Police. Basirhat, Superintendent of Police Basirhat and the District Magistrate, North 24 Parganas.
The Learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Basirhat took cognizance of the instant case on 26.11.2018. On 01.12.2018 the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Basirhat was pleased to issue process against the petitioner herein and others under Section 204 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
The petitioner could not appear before the Learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Basirhat on 08.02.2019 because he was called by the D
Tomaso Bruno and Another Vs State of Uttar Pradesh reported in (2015) 7 SCC 178
Surinderjit Singh Mand and another Vs State of Punjab and another reported in (2016) 8 SCC 722
Shafhi Mohammad Vs State of Himachal Pradesh reported in AIR 2018 SC 714
Arjun Panditrao Khotkar Vs Kailash Kuhanrao Gorantyal reported in 2020 (7) SCC 1
State of Haryana vs Bhajan Lal
D.T. Virupakshappa vs C. Subash
Shafhi Mohammad vs State of Himachal Pradesh
Anvar P.V. vs P.K. Basheer and Ors.
Sanjaysinh Ramrao Chavan vs Dattatray Gulabrao Phalke and Ors.
Inder Mohan Goswami and Anr. Vs State of Uttaranchal and Ors.
Priyanka Srivastava and Anr. Vs State of Uttar Pradesh and Ors.
Lalita Kumari vs. Government of Uttar Pradesh and Ors.
Tomaso Bruno and Anr. Vs State of Uttar Pradesh
Surinderjit Singh Mand and Anr. Vs State of Punjab and Anr.
Arjun Panditrao Khotkar vs Kailash Kushanrao Gorantyal and Ors.
The judgment establishes the principle that criminal proceedings can be quashed if they constitute an abuse of the legal process and if there is a lack of evidence to support the allegations.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that public servants, when allegedly committing an offence in discharge of their official duties, require prior sanction for prosecution under Sect....
A public servant, while discharging official duties, cannot be prosecuted without prior sanction; allegations lacking credible evidence, particularly injury, support quashing criminal proceedings.
Public servants are entitled to protection under Section 197 of the Cr.P.C. when acting in the discharge of their official duties, and allegations against them must demonstrate a reasonable connectio....
The central legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for prior sanction for prosecution of public servants under Section 197 Cr.P.C., and the necessity for specific allegations and ....
The main legal point established in the judgment is the need to balance the protection of public servants with the rights of citizens, as well as the requirement for a reasonable connection between t....
Public servants are protected from prosecution under Section 197 only if acts are performed while acting in official duty; allegations of physical assault unrelated to such duty do not require prior ....
The court establishes that the sanction under Section 197 of Cr.P.C. is not required when the offence committed by a public servant is not in the discharge of official duty.
Section 197 of the Code of Criminal Procedure requires that a public servant's alleged misconduct must relate closely to their official duties to warrant protection, which the minister's angry outbur....
The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement of sanction for prosecuting public servants under Section 197 of Cr.P.C. for offences under the Indian Penal Code, emphasizing the ....
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.