Back
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
AJOY KUMAR MUKHERJEE, J.
Debarati Banerjee – Petitioner
Versus
The State of West Bengal and Another – Respondents
CRR No. 1420 of 2019
Decided On : 17-08-2023
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE - SECTION 202 - CRIMINAL INTIMIDATION - SECTION 506 - CRIMINAL CONSPIRACY - SECTION 120B - QUASHING OF CRIMINAL PROCEEDINGS - ABUSE OF PROCESS - JURISDICTION - TRANSFER OF EMPLOYEE - SERVICE CONDITION - PRIVATE BANK - TRANSFER POLICY - JUDICIAL COGNIZANCE - APPLICATION OF MIND - MAGISTRATE'S ROLE - PRELIMINARY DEPOSITION - ISSUANCE OF PROCESS - PRIMA FACIE CASE - VICARIOUS LIABILITY - SPECIFIC ALLEGATION - ROLE OF ACCUSED.
Fact of the Case:
Petitioner, the Manager of Human Resources department of IDBI Bank, Shakespheare Sarani Branch, Kolkata, challenged a criminal proceeding initiated against him for allegedly hatching a conspiracy to transfer the complainant, a Grade-A employee, from Suri Branch, West Bengal to a Branch in Tripura. The complainant had made a complaint against another employee, Ms. Dutta, alleging sexual harassment at the workplace. The petitioner, as part of the internal complaint committee, forwarded the complaint to the higher authority. Ms. Dutta was subsequently transferred to Tripura on an administrative basis as per the bank's transfer policy. The complainant then filed a criminal complaint against the petitioner and others, alleging that the transfer was a result of a conspiracy to remove him from the Suri Branch.
Finding of the Court:
The Court held that the petitioner had not committed any offence punishable under the Indian Penal Code (IPC). The Court found that the petitioner had not participated in the decision of transfer and that the transfer order was issued as per the bank's transfer policy. The Court further held that the complainant had failed to make out a prima facie case against the petitioner and that he had filed the complaint to wreck vengeance by abusing the process of court.
Issues: 1. Whether the petitioner had committed any offence punishable under the IPC? 2. Whether the complainant had made out a prima facie case against the petitioner? 3. Whether the continuation of the criminal proceeding against the petitioner would be an abuse of process of court?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The essential ingredients of the offence of criminal intimidation under Section 506 of the IPC are that the accused threatened someone with injury to his person, reputation, or property, with the intent to cause alarm to the complainant and to cause the complainant to perform any act which he was not legally bound to do. 2. The term "injury" under Section 44 of the IPC denotes any harm whatsoever illegally caused to any person, in body, mind, reputation, or property. 3. The order of transfer issued by the petitioner did not fall within the realms of an offence as defined under the penal law, as there was no threat to cause any "injury" to the complainant's reputation or property. 4. The offence of criminal conspiracy under Section 120B of the IPC is committed when two or more persons agree to do or cause to be done an illegal act or an act which may be legal but has been done by illegal means. 5. In the present case, there was no agreement between the petitioner and other accused persons to commit any illegal act or any legal act by illegal means. 6. The order of cognizance which forms the basis of initiation of proceedings cannot be made in a mechanical way but requires great exercise of judicial mind. 7. The Magistrate has to carefully scrutinize the evidence brought on record and may even himself put questions to the complainant and his witnesses to elicit answers to find out the truthfulness of the allegations or otherwise and then examine if any offence is prima facie committed by all or any of the accused. 8. In the present case, the Magistrate had not given any reason for taking cognizance of the offence against the petitioner, thereby showing non-application of judicial mind.
Final Decision: The Court quashed the criminal proceeding against the petitioner, holding that the continuation of the proceeding would be an abuse of process of court.
JUDGMENT :
AJOY KUMAR MUKHERJEE, J.
1. This application under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 (Cr.P.C.) has been preferred seeking quashing of the proceeding in respect of present petitioner being complaint case no. 632 of 2018, pending before learned Judicial Magistrate 3rd Court, Suri, Birbhum. Petitioner states that petitioner is the Manager of Human Resources department of IDBI Bank, Shakespheare Sarani Branch. Ms. A.Dutta, being a Grade-A employee in course of her employment was posted at the Suri Branch. Said Ms. Dutta made a complain against opposite party no. 2 herein and on receipt of such complain the Branch Head had forwarded the same to the Regional Head and thereafter Regional Head forwarded the same to the higher authority. Said complain was in the nature of sexual harassment at work place and an internal complaint committee in terms of law, started enquiry into the complain made by Ms. Dutta against opposite party No. 2 herein. Petitioner submits that he was neither a part of said internal complaint committee nor he was a decision-making authority in respect of findings of such committee. In the meantime said opposite party no. 2 was transferred from Suri Branch, West Bengal to a Branch in the state of Tripura on an administrative basis. Petitioner further contended as per the transfer policy of IDBI Bank, officers with more than five years of stay in a station, would normally be liable for transfer outside the station. Since opposite party no. 2 herein has completed his six years service at Suri Branch and as there was an urgent requirement of an experienced officer in the Tripura Branch, the transfer was effected as an administrative measure.
2. Petitioner’s further case is he was surprised to receive a summon in the month of December, 2018, wherefrom she came to know that said opposite party no. 2 has filed suit for defamation before the Civil Judge (Senior Division), Durgapur on an absolute false and concocted story alleging that petitioner herein has hatched up conspiracy for ensuring the transfer of opposite party no. 2 herein and prayed for passing decree for Rs. 5,00000/-against each of the defendants including the petitioner herein in the said suit. In the midst of such event, the petitioner was further surprised to receive another summon wherefrom it appeared that opposite party no. 2 has filed aforesaid criminal proceeding against present petitioner and other accused persons.
3. In the said written complaint opposite party no. 2 herein contended that he was posted as Assistant Manager of IDBI Bank, Suri Branch, and accused no. 1 to 4 (present petitioner is accused no. 2) have an unholy nexus to cause removal of opposite party no. 2 from the said Branch. In pursuance of such conspiracy the accused no. 1 (aforesaid Ms. Dutta) on instruction of the other accused persons had lodged a false complaint of physical molestation. It is further alleged that upon complain made against the opposite party no. 2, the accused persons caused assassination of the character of the opposite party no. 2 herein. Accused No. 3 had forwarded complaint of Ms. Dutta to accused no. 2 (petitioner herein) and opposite party no. 2 had sent the said complain to accused no. 4 and accordingly the impugned transfer was effected. Further allegation is that accused no. 1 and 3 have caused physical and mental torture upon opposite party no. 2 and due to such illegal activities of the accused persons and the conspiracy, the opposite party no. 2 has been transferred to Tripura.
4. Learned court below after considering the allegations made in the written complaint took cognizance and after taking initial deposition, has been pleased to issue summon under section 204 of the Cr.P.C. Summons were issued upon accused no. 1 and 3 under section 323/506/120B of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and summon was issued upon the present petitioner herein (who is accused no. 2) under section 506/120B IPC and the complaint against accused no. 4
AI
The Court reiterated that the order of cognizance which forms the basis of initiation of proceedings cannot be made in a mechanical way but requires great exercise of judicial mind, and that the Magi....
The main legal point established is that a public servant discharging official duty is protected under Section 197 Cr.P.C., and the complaint stage inquiry is limited to prima facie satisfaction of s....
The mandatory provision of Section 202 of the Code of Criminal Procedure must be followed before issuing process against the accused residing outside the jurisdiction.
A Magistrate is required to conduct an inquiry under Section 202 of the Cr.P.C. before issuing process against an accused residing outside the jurisdiction of the Court to prevent the harassment of i....
The Magistrate's duty to conduct an inquiry under Section 202 CrPC before issuing process against an accused residing outside the court's jurisdiction is mandatory and not merely directory, and the M....
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
