The main legal point established in the judgment is the application of legal provisions to determine the lack of prima facie evidence for the alleged offenses, leading to the quashing of the proceedings.

JUDGMENT :

Ananya Bandyopadhyay, J.

1. The instant revisional application has been filed by the petitioner for quashing of the proceeding being Dankuni Police Station Case No. 102 of 2009 dated 22.09.2009 under Sections 469/471/419/205/120B/500/506 /504 of the Indian Penal Code read with Sections 142/143 of the Railways Act, 1989 (G.R. No. 926 of 2009) and quashing of the Charge-Sheet No. 170 of 2010 dated 09.12.2010 under Sections 469/471/419/195/205/120B/ 506/504 of the Indian Penal Code read with Sections 142/143 of the Railways Act, 1989.

2. Petitioner was a business man by profession engaged in the business of providing bulk materials handling equipments to Steel Authority of India.

3. Dankuni Police Station Case No. 102 of 2009 dated 22.09.2009 under Sections 469/471/419/205/120B/500/506/504 of the Indian Penal Code read with Sections 142/143 of the Indian Railways Act, 1989 was started on the basis of a written application under Section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure filed in the Court of the Learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate at Serampore, District – Hooghly by one Bijay Kumar Chowdhury of FE-471, Salt Lake City, Sector – III, Kolkata – 700106, West Bengal inter alia, alleging that the complainant had been a businessman, dealing in a partnership business of supplying bulk materials to SAIL at Dankuni, the petitioner alleged that the accused was also in the same business which gave rise to business rivalry and the accused petitioners had falsely implicated in criminal cases. Petitioner’s employee purchased train tickets in the name of the complainant and his brother but they never travelled in such train.

4. The impugned Charge-Sheet was void of any material particulars to constitute offence committed by the petitioner and was filed in a perfunctory manner.

5. The said impugned Charge-Sheet filed by S.I. Sk. Azad Hossain it was stated by the said Investigating Officer that ‘he visited the place of occurrence, contacted with the complainant, requested him to produce witness, but he failed’, yet the Charge-Sheet was filed.

6. The Charge-Sheet comprised of contradictory and confusing statements based on a case filed under Section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure in the Court of Learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Serampore, the S.I. Sk. Azad Hossain.

7. Learned Advocate for the petitioner submitted that –

i. The impugned proceeding was in gross abuse of the process of law which if allowed to continue would degenerate itself into a weapon of harassment and prosecution and as such it was liable to be quashed for the ends of justice.

ii. The impugned Charge-Sheet was void of any material of particular offence committed by the petitioner and was filed in a perfunctory manner.

8. The petitioners’ contention precisely stated that the complainant filed an application under Section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure before the Learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Seramore, Hooghly, owing to several grievances viz:

a. The petitioner intended to compete with the complainant, a well-reputed businessman, in terms of business with the Steel Authority of Indian Ltd. (SAIL) at Dankuni.

b. Suddenly the complainant learnt about a criminal complaint filed under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. before the Learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Roop, Bharatpur and he was interrogated by Ucchain Police Station for the offence under Section 376/120B of the Penal Code.

c. The complainant disclosed to have been falsely implicated and as such he filed a discharge petitioner before the said Learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate.

d. In the meanwhile, the complainant came to know about another case filed before Baldev Police Station, Mathura under Sections 307/504 of the Indian Penal Code.

e. The complainant moved a writ petition before the Hon’ble High Court, Allahabad Bench and an appropriate direction for investigation was passed. There was also direction to consider the bail prayer of the complainant.

f. T