SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2023 Supreme(Cal) 611

IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA CIRCUIT BENCH JALPAIGURI
AJOY KUMAR MUKHERJEE, J.
Rajiv Jain – Petitioner
Versus
State of West Bengal and Another – Respondents
CRR No. 180 of 2021, CRAN No. 1 of 2021
Decided On : 14-06-2023

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Petitioners: Suresh Kr. Mitruka, Aayush Mitruka, Mantosh Bhowmick.
For the Respondents: Aditi Shankar Chakraborty, Sourav Ganguly.

Headnote:

Penal Code, 1860 – Sections 188, 447, 323, 325, 354, 307, 466, 467, 468, 479, 471, 120B – Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 – Section 156(3), 482, 161 – Attempt to murder – Punishment for criminal Conspiracy – Voluntarily causing hurt – Punishment for voluntarily causing grievous hurt – Forgery of a valuable security – Forgery for purpose of cheating – Property mark – Defacto complainant – Criminal proceedings – Investigation by Police – Held, in absence of any allegation of forgery, inevitable conclusion is that materials relied by accused has not been refuted by prosecution or defacto complainant and materials is such that it cannot be justifiably refuted by prosecution agency or defacto complainant and as such sections 466/467, 468/479/471/120B cannot have any application against petitioner herein in present context. Similarly in view of above referred unchallenged documents, which prima facie establish that petitioner was not and could have been present and/or instigate at time of commission of alleged crime under section 188 or 447 or 323 or 325 or 354 or 307/120B of I.P.C, Court find continuance of present proceeding against present petitioner would be an abuse of process of court and would not serve the ends of justice since there is hardly any chance of conviction of present petitioner at end of trial – In view of aforesaid discussion Court of clear view that criminal case has been filed against petitioner only for achieving ultimate goal to criminalise a civil dispute and court should not encourage such practice – CRR allowed.

JUDGMENT :

AJOY KUMAR MUKHERJEE, J.

1. Quashing of proceeding being NJP Police Station Case no. 1216 of 2021 dated 13.11.2011, presently pending before the court of leaned Chief Judicial Magistrate Jalpaiguri, has been sought for by filing present application under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Petitioner contended that the defacto complainant/opposite party no.2 lodged a complaint under section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C.) against the present petitioner and 5 others and learned Magistrate was pleased to direct NJP police station to conduct investigation treating the petition of complain as FIR. Accordingly police started aforesaid criminal proceeding against the petitioner and other accused persons under sections 188/447/323/325/354/307/466/467/468/479/471/120B of the Indian Penal code, 1860 (IPC).

2. The allegations levelled in the said FIR against the present petitioner and other accused persons interalia to the effect that husband of defacto complainant was owner of one plot of land by the side of National Highway and she is one of the co-sharer of said land and one partition suit in connection with the said land is pending in the Jalpaiguri court, being partition suit No. 123/2021 where she obtained an order of injunction. Accused persons are aware of the said suit, but on 29.10.2021 at about 10.30.a.m., all the accused persons without intimating complainant and her family members illegally and forcefully entered into the suit land violating the order of injunction and attempted to construct tin sheded room over the land. Getting such information defacto complainant obstructed the accused persons and then the accused persons abused her with filthy languages and assaulted her with bamboo lathi and with fist and blows and attempted to kill her by strangulation and outraged her modesty and also threatened her with dire consequences but she somehow managed to flee away from the spot and could save her life. Plaintiff further alleged that the land encroachers (jamidassura) have made conspiracy and in order to grab her land, the accused persons including the present petitioner, manufactured false deed being no. 258/84 dated 16.01.1984. It is further alleged that husband of the defacto complainant previously initiated another criminal proceeding being GR Case No. 1174 of 2012 dated 12.03.2012, alleging that the land brokers have cheated him and created false deed in connection with the said property. However investigation of said case yielded no result and police submitted final report contending that during investigation no case has been made out against the accused persons.

3. Opposite party herein lodged a complain in respect of said occurrence which allegedly took place on 29.10.2021 but police did not take any action inspite of her written complaint at the NJP outpost dated 02.11.2021. Thereafter defacto complainant also sent copy of complain to Siliguri Police Commissionerate on 07.11.2021 but as police was reluctant to start investigation, she was compelled to knock the door of learned Magistrate to lodge aforesaid application under section 156(3) Cr.P.C., whereby court below directed the police authority to start investigation.

4. Mr. Mitruka, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that the petitioner is a cancer patient and was bed-ridden and was admitted in Tata Medical Centre Mumbai, on an from 24th October 2021 to 30th October 2021 and on 25th October 2021 he was also operated by the doctors of said Tata Medical Centre and subsequently he was discharged on 30th October, 2021. However he stayed at Mumbai till 17th November, 2021, due to various medical tests. In this context he further submits that complaint lodged by the complainant against petitioner is false and concocted and no such incident occurred on the alleged date, in view of fact that in the FIR it has been alleged that the incident occurred on 29.10.2021, but the petitioner was in Mumbai for treatmen

            Click Here to Read the rest of this document
            1
            2
            3
            4
            5
            6
            7
            8
            9
            10
            11
            SupremeToday Portrait Ad
            supreme today icon
            logo-black

            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

            qr

            Scan Me!

            India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

            For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

            whatsapp-icon Back to top