The court emphasized the necessity of adhering to legal protocols in criminal investigations and the jurisdictional limits of judicial orders, particularly regarding compliance with directives from separate proceedings.

JUDGMENT :

Arijit Banerjee, J.

1. This appeal is directed against a judgment and order dated September 30, 2024, passed by a learned Judge of this Court in WPA No. 1944 of 2024, being a writ petition filed by the private respondent no. 1 herein. The writ petition is still pending.

2. The relevant facts of the case are that a criminal proceeding being Bhakti Nagar Police Station Case no. 450/2022 dated 04/05/2022 under Sections 447, 506, 420, 465, 467, 468, 471, 188 and 120B of Indian Penal Code corresponding to GR Case No. 2454 of 2022 was initiated against the private respondent/writ petitioner before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jalpaiguri.

3. The private respondent herein filed a writ petition being WPA No. 1018 of 2022 praying for quashing of the said criminal proceeding. He argued that the criminal proceeding was motivated and was initiated only to harass him. He also submitted that there were deliberate arbitrary acts of police atrocity inflicted on him by illegally detaining him on the basis of an FIR registered over the same facts on the basis of which an earlier criminal case is already pending. Apart from praying for quashing the proceedings, the writ petitioner prayed for monetary compensation.

4. By a judgment and order dated February 8, 2023, a learned Judge of this Court partly allowed the writ petition by quashing Bhaktinagar PS Case No. 450 of 2022. However, in so far as the claim for monetary compensation was concerned, it was held that “as the respondents acted in good faith believing themselves that they are bound by law to register a case where cognizable offence was disclosed, the petitioner is not entitled to get any monetary compensation.”

5. Being aggrieved, the writ petitioner carried the said judgment and order in appeal by filing MAT 26 of 2023. A Coordinate Bench disposed of the appeal and the connected application by a judgment and order dated August 19, 2024, the relevant portion whereof reads as follows:-

“9. It is clear and explicit from the above, that the investigating officer had not applied his mind and flagrantly violated the dicta of the Supreme Court in the case of Lalita Kumari (supra) and in the case of Arnesh Kumar (supra).

10. There is admittedly no notice under Section 41A of the Cr. PC. No preliminary enquiry was held when admittedly the complaint had substantial aspect of the civil disputes.

11. The order of the CJM, Jalpaiguri is equally shocking. The CJM, Jalpaiguri ought to have known more than the investigating officer of the requirement of compliance under section 41A of the Cr. PC.

12. The CJM, Jalpaiguri was duly apprised of the pendency of the civil suit between the parties and the earlier complaint, FIR and charge sheet of the year 2014. Notwithstanding the above, the CJM, Jalpaiguri chose to order the “police remand” of the petitioner for seven days.

13. This Court is of the view that there is gross dereliction of the duty on the part of the investigating officer and the CJM, Jalpaiguri has failed to comply with the mandatory provisions of law.

14. The detention of the petitioner for two days in custody and release SUO MOTU by the CJM, Jalpaiguri two days thereafter has clearly violated the basic dignity and rights of the petitioner under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. This is clear case of police atrocity. The gross illegality of the order of the CJM, Jalpaiguri is clear and explicit.

15. The concerned IC Bhaktinagar PS and the CJM concerned deliberately and willfully and for collateral purposes have violated the law. The role of the private respondent in this regard cannot be ruled out.

16. The learned Single Judge has rightly quashed the said FIR No.450 of 2022. What is, however, necessary for the purpose of the instant appeal and the object and purpose beyond the dicta of the Supreme Court in the case of Arnesh Kumar (supra) and Rini Johar (Supra) is to ensure the public at large are protected from being harassed and the authority of the police is not abused.

17. Despite