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

2024 Supreme(Cal) 33

IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
SHAMPA DUTT (PAUL), J.
Rahul Sinha @ Biswajit Sinha - Appellant
Versus
The State of West Bengal & Another
- Respondent
CRR. No. 939 of 2020 with CRR. No. 3332 of 2016
Decided On : 06-02-2024

Advocates appeared:
For the Petitioner:Sekhar Kumar Basu, Sr. Advocate, Moyukh Mukherjee, Arijit Bakshi, Advocates. For the Respondents:Suman De, Advocates. For the Opposite Parties: None.

The main legal point established in the judgment is that the registration of multiple FIRs for the same incident constitutes an abuse of the process of law and violates fundamental rights.

Headnote:

ABUSE OF PROCESS OF LAW - Multiple FIRs - Indian Penal Code, Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act, Maintenance of Public Order Act - 147, 148, 149, 447, 186, 353, 332, 333, 427, 325, 326, 307, 435, 379, 3/4, 9/10 - The court quashed the proceedings of two cases against the petitioner as they arose from the same incident and constituted an abuse of the process of law. The court cited legal principles from T.T. Antony vs State of Kerela, Babubhai vs State of Gujrat, Amitbhai Anichandra Shah vs CBI, Tarak Dash Mukherjee & Ors. vs State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors., and Mahmood Ali & Ors. vs State of U.P. & Ors. to support its decision.

Fact of the Case:

The petitioner was accused in two cases arising from the same incident where a political meeting turned violent. The petitioner argued that the filing of the second FIR infringed on his fundamental rights under Article 21 of the Constitution of India.

Finding of the Court:

The court found that the registration of multiple FIRs for the same incident was an abuse of the process of law and infringed on the petitioner's fundamental rights. The court also noted that the allegations against the petitioner did not constitute a cognizable offence and were manifestly frivolous and vexatious.

Issues: The issues revolved around the abuse of the process of law through the registration of multiple FIRs for the same incident and the infringement of the petitioner's fundamental rights.

Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was based on the legal principles established in previous judgments, emphasizing that the registration of multiple FIRs for the same incident constitutes an abuse of the process of law and violates fundamental rights.

Final Decision: The court quashed the proceedings of the two cases against the petitioner, citing the abuse of the process of law and the infringement of fundamental rights.

JUDGMENT

1. The present revision has been preferred praying for quashing of the proceedings being:-

    (a) Suti Police Station Case No. 379/12 dated 31.08.2012 under Sections 147/ 148/149/ 447/ 186/ 353/ 332/ 333/ 427/325/ 326/ 307/ 435/ 379 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 3/4 of Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act, read with Section 9/10 of the Maintenance of Public Order Act, pending before the Court of the Learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jangipur, Murshidabad (corresponding to G.R. Case No. 1222/12).

    (b) Suti Police Station Case No. 380/12 dated 31.08.2012 under Sections 147/ 148/149/ 447/ 186/ 353/ 332/ 333/ 427/ 325/ 326/ 307/ 435/ 379 of the Indian Penal Code with Section 3/4 of Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act, read with Section 9/10 of the Maintenance of Public Order Act, pending before the Court of the Learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jangipur, Murshidabad (corresponding to G.R. Case No. 1223/12).

2. FACTS:-

The present case against the petitioner has been initiated on the basis of a written complaint filed by the opposite party no. 2, Block Development Officer of Block Suti-I, alleging that:-

    One Swadhin Ghosh, President, Suti-I, local Committee of Bhartiya Janata Party prayed for a meeting (on deputation) with the BDO, Suti -I, on 31.08.2012, at 3pm. The BDO, Suti -I, received the said prayer in his office, however, no permission was granted. None of the members of the said political party met the Block Development Officer, informing him or obtaining any permission for constructing a pandal within the office premises. That no permission was obtained from the competent authority for use of microphone. That people started gathering at the Block premises, from 1 pm, and the meeting formally started at about 1.30 pm. At that time, more or less 1000 persons assembled at the said spot. It was further alleged that, the local leaders, namely, Sasthi Ghosh, Anamitra Banerjee, and the petitioner, along with one Subhas Mondal, reached the said pandal and resumed the meeting. The petitioner, who is holding the post of president, Bhartiya Janata Party, West Bengal, delivered his speech for about 20 minutes, and at about 2.20 pm, he got down from the stage. At that time, the mass assembled on the spot, started flinging stones, bricks, and bombs towards the said officers and office building. The petitioner left the said spot in the mean time. The Block Development Officer, allegedly, tried his best to control the unruly mob and requested them to keep peace. The staff of the said office closed all doors and windows of the said office and tried to escape. Thereafter about 40-50 persons, who were armed, broke into the said office building and destroyed all the furnitures and other Government properties, as well as burnt the police vehicles. It was also alleged that the unruly mob, became violent and attacked Government officials as well as police personnels, with bombs, lathies, bombs etc.

3. On the basis of the aforesaid complaint, Suti Police Station Case No. 379/12 dated 31.08.2012, under Sections 147/ 148/ 149/ 447/ 186/ 353 /332 /333 /427 /325 /326 /307 /435 /379 of the Indian Penal Code read with Section 3/4 of the Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act read with Section 9/10 of the Maintenance of Public Order Act, was registered for investigation against the petitioner and other co-accused persons (hereinafter referred to as the first FIR).

4. The petitioner had to suffer further ignominy and harassment, when it was brought to his knowledge that after the receipt of the aforementioned case, and in respect of the selfsame facts and allegations, another case was registered for investigation against the petitioner herein.

5. On enquiry by the petitioner it was revealed that one Rajat Das, Sub Inspector of Police, Inspector in Charge of Ahiron, lodged a complaint with the Officer in Charge of Suti Police Station, inter alia alleging

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