Back
2024 Supreme(Cal) 870
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
Ajay Kumar Gupta, J.
Moitry Dana & Another - Petitioner
Vs.
The State of West Bengal & Another - Respondent
C.R.R. 2857 of 2022
Decided On : 05-08-2024
Advocate Appeared:
For the Petitioners: Mr. Rajdeep Mazumder, Adv., Mr. Moyukh Mukherjee, Adv. Ms. Sagnika Banerjee, Adv. Ms. Aishwarya Bazaz, Mr. Sarthak Mondal, Adv.
For the State : Mr. Debasish Roy, Ld. P.P., Mr. Rudradipta Nandy, Ld. A.P.P. Ms. Sanjana Saha, Adv.
IMPORTANT POINT
The court established that prior sanction is mandatory for investigating public servants under the Prevention of Corruption Act, ensuring protection against frivolous prosecutions.
Headnote:
Quashing - Criminal Proceedings - IPC Sections 406, 420, 120B, 34; Prevention of Corruption Act Sections 7, 7A, 8, 11, 13 - The court quashed the proceedings due to lack of necessary sanction under Section 17A of the Prevention of Corruption Act, emphasizing the need for prior approval for investigations involving public servants.
Fact of the Case:
Petitioners sought to quash proceedings against them for alleged illegal job appointments at AIIMS Kalyani, claiming misuse of power and lack of proper investigation procedures.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the FIR lacked necessary sanction under Section 17A of the Prevention of Corruption Act, rendering the investigation illegal and the proceedings an abuse of process.
Issues: Whether the appointment required adherence to recruitment rules, if the petitioners were in permanent service, and if the FIR was valid without prior sanction under Section 17A.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the lack of prior sanction under Section 17A of the Prevention of Corruption Act invalidated the FIR and investigation, thus quashing the proceedings.
Result: The proceedings against the petitioners were quashed.
JUDGMENT :
Ajay Kumar Gupta, J.
1. Petitioners/accused persons are seeking quashing of the proceedings of D.R. Case No. 2812/2022 arising out of Kalyani Police Station Case No. 241/2022 dated 20.05.2022 under Sections 406/420/120B/34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and Sections 7/7A/8/11/13 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 pending before the Court of the Learned Additional Sessions Judge, 4th Court, Krishnanagar, Nadia –cum- Learned Special Court (Prevention of Corruption Act) by filing a criminal revisional application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.
2. The factual matrix of the instant case is as under: -
2a. The petitioner no. 1 is the daughter of the petitioner no. 2, who is a Member of the Legislative Assembly from the Bankura Constituency and is leader of a political party. Suddenly, the petitioner no. 1 received a notice under Section 160 of the Code of Criminal Procedure from one Ashim Mondal, Inspector of Police, Economic Offence Wing, CID, West Bengal dated 04.07.2022 requiring her to appear on 11.07.2022 though she was completely unaware about the case being Kalyani Police Station Case No. 241/2022 dated 20.05.2022 under Sections 406/420/120B/34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and Sections 7/7A/8/11/13 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.
2b. Petitioner no. 1 wanted to know the actual facts of the case and applied for certified copy of the FIR before the Court of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, 4th Court, Krishnanagar, Nadia, but she could not get certified copy because the concerned department denied to accept the petitioner no. 1’s application for certified copy without any sufficient reasons. She had filed a revisional application before this Hon’ble High Court being CRR 2386 of 2022 and after hearing, a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 08.07.2022 was pleased to pass the following directions, inter alia, as under:
“Considering such aspect of the matter, this court is of the view that the petitioner is entitled to get the certified copy of the FIR. The learned trial judge is directed to supply the certified copy of the FIR upon an application to be filed by the petitioner in the court below and after following all procedure for obtaining certified copy of a document.
With the above direction, the instant revision is disposed of.
The Investigating Officer is permitted to examine the petitioner on the basis of notice under Section 160 of the Code of Criminal Procedure after supplying a copy of the FIR to the petitioner and giving her opportunity to go through the same to ascertain as to whether she has any knowledge about the incident or not.”
2c. After getting certified copy, she came to know that she is one of the FIR named accused persons and the petitioner no. 2 is also the FIR named accused person. In spite of being FIR named accused person, petitioners were served illegal notice under Section 160 of the CrPC only to fulfil illegal and mala fide motive of the State police authorities and the complainant therein. It is not permitted under the law that an investigating agency requiring the attendance of an accused person with a view to his/her answering the charge made against him/her under Section 160 of the CrPC. The intention of the section is to provide a facility for obtaining evidence and not for procuring the attendance of the accused persons.
2d. One Sariful Islam, being the complainant, had made an accusation against several accused persons including petitioners herein, inter alia, as under:
“On 19.05.2022 through a Bengali Newspaper article, the complainant came to learn that one Moitry Dana (accused no. 4/petitioner no. 1) had landed a job as “Data Entry Operator” in AIIMS Kalyani for a monthly salary of about Rs. 30,000/-. It has been alleged that said Moitry Dana was handed over the job without her even having taken part in the recruitment test which was undertaken by all other eligible candidates who had applied for the same position/job in the sai
