IMPORTANT POINT
Judges must not be chosen by litigants; recusal requests require valid reasons to uphold judicial independence.

JUDGMENT :

Ajay Kumar Gupta, J:

1. This instant application has been filed by the opposite party no. 2/de-facto complainant, Sheshadri Goswami, appearing in person praying for appropriate order or orders to release or seeking recusal from hearing of the case C.R.R. 1700 of 2022 by this Bench.

2. It was submitted by the opposite party no. 2 that he is representing 17 persons, who are poor investors. All the investors including the petitioner had invested their hard earn money to the company namely IFB Finance Limited in the year 1996 and thereafter. Even after maturity, the said finance company neither returned the principal nor interest accrued therein of their fixed deposit. All the investors are the victims as such a letter of complaint was filed by the opposite party no. 2 before the Special Additional Commissioner of Police, Joint Commissioner of Police (Crime), Detective Department, Lalbazar, Kolkata. On the basis of said written complaint, an FIR being Shakespeare Sarani Police Station Case No. 287 dated 14th August, 2015 under Sections 420/406/120B/506 of the IPC has been registered and started against three accused persons (i) Mr. Bijon Nag, Chairman and Managing Director, IFB Finance Limited (ii) Soumendra Kr. Biswas (petitioner herein), Executive Managing Director and (iii) N. Punyaswami, Managing Director of IFB Group of Companies such as IFB Industries Limited, IFB Agro Industries Limited, IFB Finance Limited. After conclusion of investigation, the investigating officer has submitted a final report concluding therein that there is no prima facie material established against the accused persons as the allegation of the de-facto complainant appears to be case of civil in nature. The said final report was accepted by the jurisdictional Magistrate holding therein that the complainant did not appear while hearing in spite of service of notice.

3. Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the said acceptance of final report without applying judicious mind and also not providing opportunity of hearing to the opposite party no. 2 at the time of accepting such final report, the opposite party no. 2 filed revisional application being CRR 646 of 2018 (Sheshadri Goswami Vs. The State of West Bengal & Anr.) before the Hon’ble High Court at Calcutta. The said case was heard by a co-ordinate Bench and finally disposed of on 28.04.2022 giving an opportunity to the opposite party no. 2 herein to file an appropriate application under Section 178 of the Cr.PC before the jurisdictional Court and further directed to hear the said case and concluded the same by 20th of May, 2022. After filing of the application before the jurisdictional Magistrate, the present petitioner, at the same time, filed this instant revisional application praying for seeking necessary direction/directions as prayed for in connection with G.R. No. 1881 of 2015 arising out of Shakespeare Sarani Police Station Case No. 287 of 2015 dated August 14, 2015 under Sections 420/406/120B/506 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 pending before the Court of the Learned Chief Metropolitan Magistrate at Calcutta.

4. It is further submitted that earlier revisional application filed by the opposite party no. 2 was heard by Hon’ble Justice Tirthankar Ghosh, who is very much well aware and conversant with the facts of the case. Even knowing the said facts, the petitioner is trying to stop the proceeding by hook or crook taking the advantage that the opposite party no. 2 is poor. This instant matter had been mentioned before this Court without prior giving any notice or informing the applicant/de-facto complainant. This matter should have appeared before the Hon’ble Justice Tirthankar Ghosh for its disposal.

5. It was further submitted that a letter for assignment of this matter has been made before the Hon’ble the Chief Justice, High Court Calcutta on 3rd January, 2024.

6. In view of the aforesaid facts, he wanted to be release or seeking recusal of this Bench from hearing the instant case. So