Back
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
Subrata Talukdar, Krishna Rao, JJ.
Kamal Chandra @ Chanda - Petitioner
Versus
The State of West Bengal & Ors. – Respondents
MAT 693 & 732 of 2021 With IA No. CAN 1 of 2021
Decided On : 22-12-2022
Criminal Jurisdiction - Writ Petition - Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Section 420/406 - [SUMMARY]
Fact of the Case:
The appeals were filed against the order passed by the Learned Single Judge in WPA No. 11326 of 2021 with CAN 1 of 2021. The respondent raised a preliminary objection on the maintainability of the appeals, arguing that the relief granted to the writ petitioner was in the nature of exercise of criminal jurisdiction and hence the appeals were not maintainable before the Court.
Finding of the Court:
The Court analyzed the nature of relief granted to the writ petitioner and the prayers in the writ petition. It considered the implications of the impugned order and the exercise of criminal jurisdiction by the Learned Single Judge. The Court referred to relevant judgments and concluded that the appeal preferred by the appellants was not maintainable.
Issues: The primary issue was the maintainability of the appeals in light of the nature of relief granted to the writ petitioner and the exercise of criminal jurisdiction by the Learned Single Judge.
Ratio Decidendi: The Court held that the impugned order invoked criminal jurisdiction by staying the criminal proceedings, restraining the police authority, and granting bail to the writ petitioner. It considered the nature of the relief granted and the implications of the order in determining the maintainability of the appeals.
Final Decision: The Court dismissed the appeals, concluding that they were not maintainable. The parties were entitled to act on the basis of a server copy of the Judgment and Order placed on the official website of the Court.
JUDGMENT :
Krishna Rao, J.
1. The de-facto complainant in connection with Liluah Police Station Case No. 213 of 2021 dt. 05.06.2021 under Section 420/406 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 as well as the State of West Bengal have preferred the above appeals against the order passed by the Learned Single Judge in WPA No. 11326 of 2021 with CAN 1 of 2021 (Gobinda Hazra vs. State of West Bengal & Ors.) dt. 19.07.2021 wherein the Learned Single Judge had passed the following order :
Since the proceedings have been stayed and there is no need for interrogation of the petitioner and consequently no need for custody, the petitioner shall be entitled to be enlarged on bail.
It is made clear that the petitioner shall not in any way influence any witness or tamper with any of the evidence that are likely to be material to the pending cases against him.
The State and other respondents may use affidavit-in-opposition within a period of three weeks from date. Reply, if any, be filed within a period of two weeks thereafter.
Liberty to mention for early hearing after completion of pleadings.”
2. The respondent/ writ petitioner has taken a preliminary objection with regard to maintainability of the appeals on the ground that the nature of relief granted to the writ petitioner which is under challenge in the instant appeals is in the nature of exercise of criminal jurisdiction and as such the instant appeal is not maintainable before this Court.
3. Mr. Ayan Bhattacharjee, Learned Counsel appearing for the appellant submits that the writ petitioner has neither prayed for quashing of the criminal proceeding nor the writ petitioner has prayed for any order for initiation of the criminal proceeding since, the criminal proceeding already initiated.
4. Mr. Bhattacharjee further submits that the writ petitioner filed the writ petition challenging that the investigation was not been conducted in a proper manner and prayed for change of Investigating Agencies.
5. Mr. Bhattacharjee draws the attention of this Court to the prayer of the writ petition and submits that in none of the prayer, the writ petitioner has prayed for quashing of the proceedings initiated against the writ petitioner and for discharging of the writ petitioner from the said case.
6. Mr. Bhattacharjee further submits that in prayer (c) of the writ petition, the writ petitioner has only prayed for quashing of any decision arrived by the authorities continuing with the perfunctory investigation of the criminal cases initiated against the writ petitioner and it cannot be said that the writ petitioner has prayed for quashing criminal proceeding.
7. Mr. Bhattacharjee also submits that the main prayer of the writ petitioner is for transferring of the investigation to the Central Bureau of Investigation. Mr. Bhattacharjee draws the attention of this Court with regard to the averments made in paragraph 10 of the writ petition and submits that the main contention of the writ petitioner, the fundamental right of the writ petitioner as enshrined under the Constitution of India has been blatantly infringed by the Police Authority.
8. Learned Counsel for the appellant has relied upon the judgement reported in (2017) 5 SCC 533 and submits that the tenability of Intra Court Appeal will depend upon the Bench adjudicating the relief as to how it understands and appreciate the order passed by the Learned Single Judge and there cannot be any straightjacket formula for the same.
9. Mr. Bhattacharjee further submits that change of Investigating Authority in exercise of power under Section 226 of the Constitution of India cannot be said to be an order passed under a criminal jurisdiction.
10. Mr. Bhattacharjee submits that quashing of FIR and the criminal proceeding relating to termination of the cri
The main legal point established in the judgment is the determination of the maintainability of appeals based on the exercise of criminal jurisdiction by the Learned Single Judge and the nature of re....
The nature of the proceeding and the relief sought determine the jurisdiction, and the maintainability of the appeal depends on the understanding of the order passed by the learned Single Judge.
Intra Court Appeals arising from orders passed in criminal jurisdiction by a Single Judge are not maintainable under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent.
The maintainability of intra-court appeals concerning orders made in criminal jurisdiction under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent is established as not permissible, emphasizing the nature of the proce....
The Letters Patent does not permit appeals against interim orders in criminal jurisdiction, emphasizing the necessity for fair investigations by police.
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
