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

2025 Supreme(Cal) 67

IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
Ajoy Kumar Mukherjee, J.
Monika Kalra – Petitioner
Versus
The State of West Bengal & Anr. - Respondents
C.R.R. 269 of 2022
Decided On : 13-01-2025

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Petitioner: Mr. Syed Shahid Imam, Mr. Syed Shabahat Hussain, Md. Khairul, Mr. Shatadru lahiri, Mr. Sanjay Gupta, Mr. Farhan Ghaffar, Mr. Shantam Gulati, Mr. Shaswata Tripathi
For the Respondent: Mr. Madhusudan Sur, Ld. APP, Mr. Dipankar Paramanick

The High Court cannot quash criminal proceedings under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. if the FIR allegations disclose a cognizable offence, as the correctness of these allegations must be determined at trial.

Headnote:(A) Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Sections 144(2), 190, 482 - Criminal proceedings - The petitioner challenged the charge sheet in GR Case no. 1406 of 2018, asserting lack of material particulars against her - Allegations included forceful entry and vandalism at a fire station during execution of an eviction decree - The court found that the FIR disclosed a cognizable offence and that the allegations were not inherently improbable - The High Court declined to quash the proceedings, emphasizing that the correctness of allegations should be determined at trial. (Paras 1, 10, 22, 24)

(B) Quashing of FIR - The High Court reiterated that it should not interfere unless the allegations do not constitute an offence or are absurd - The court must read the FIR allegations as they stand, without delving into the reliability of evidence at this stage. (Paras 21, 23)

Facts of the case:
The petitioner, claiming to be the daughter of the property owner, was accused of leading a group that forcibly entered a fire station and removed its belongings, claiming to act under court orders. The incident occurred during the execution of an eviction decree against the fire services authority.

Findings of Court:
The court found sufficient material in the FIR to substantiate the allegations against the petitioner, ruling that the case should proceed to trial.

Issues: The main issues included whether the allegations in the FIR constituted a cognizable offence and whether the High Court should quash the proceedings.

Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the FIR's allegations, if accepted as true, disclosed a cognizable offence, and the High Court should not interfere at this stage.

Result: CRR 269 of 2022 stands dismissed.

JUDGMENT :

Ajoy Kumar Mukherjee, J.

1. Petitioner herein being aggrieved by the proceeding in GR Case no. 1406 of 2018 presently pending before the court of Judicial Magistrate 7th Court, Howrah, has preferred the present Application contending that the charge levelled in the impugned charge sheet in connection with said proceeding are bereft of any material particulars and as such the same has not been substantiated against the petitioner, though she has been arraigned as an accused in the said proceeding.

2. One officer of Liluah Fire Station lodged a written complaint with the officer-in-charge of the Belur police station alleging interalia that on 14.03.2018 at about 12.00 noon a large section of people led by the petitioner herein, claiming herself, to be the daughter of the owner of the premises suddenly entered in the fire station premises forcefully by breaking the window, wall etc. and forcibly took fire station belongings including gears appliances computer and other valuable articles in two trucks bearing registration No.WB 61 A 2215 and WB 11 B 9928 with display board ‘ on court duty’ and ‘police’ respectively. Further allegation in the complaint is that on being initially restrained during vandalisation, the petitioner claimed that they are doing all these things as per the order of the court, and thereafter she pasted a hand written order on the wall of the fire Station. It is also alleged that on further scrutiny it revealed that the said trucks displaying ‘on court duty’ and ‘police’ were not arranged from the concerned department of the court but were being personally arranged. Thereafter, the fire Station officers sought for police help and then the local people and well wishers assembled and brought the Fire station belongings down from the trucks and station gradually normalized at 4.10 p.m. Accordingly, the complainant prayed for starting legal proceeding accordingly.

3. It is submitted on behalf of the petitioner that several civil proceedings were continuing in between the father of the petitioner and the Fire services authority concerning land lord tenant dispute. Ultimately eviction decree was passed in favour of father of the petitioner/landlord against which First Appeal was preferred and thereafter second appeal also preferred before this High Court which was renumbered as SA 461 of 2008 and the said second appeal filed by the tenant /Fire service authority got dismissed. Thereafter, execution proceeding in accordance with law was proceeded by the father of the petitioner and by an order dated 15.02.2018 executing Court was pleased to direct the baliff to execute the decree and to take delivery of possession on 14.03.2018.

4. It is further case of the petitioner that petitioner’s father on 13.03.2018 filed an application under section 144 (2) Cr.P.C. before the Executive Magistrate, Howrah praying for an order upon the opposite parties restraining them from illegally trespassing into the suit premises and further restraining them from making any obstruction at the time of taking possession of the schedule property by the bailiff. In compliance with the order dated 15.02.2018, the bailiff reached the suit premises on 14.03.2018 and informed the officials of the fire brigade present therein about the order of the ld. Court and requested them to remove their belongings from the suit premises and to hand over vacant possession but the employees present therein insisted that they would first speak to their higher authority and in a surreptitious manner, the employees started accumulating in groups in an around the premises..

5. Thereafter one of the employees requested the court bailiff to arrange for two trucks so that the belongings inside the suit property could be removed. Pursuant to that, the decree holder arranged two trucks. The employees started loading their articles on the trucks. When both the trucks finished loading and the bailiff about to leave the said premises, it was then when some local misc

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