JUDGMENT :

CHAITALI CHATTERJEE DAS, J.

1. The petition has been filed for quashing of the charge-sheet being charge sheet no. 182 of 2020 dated September 30 2020, Section 448/354/509/506 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.

2. The allegations levelled against the petitioners are that on November 8, 2016 in the afternoon, the petitioner along with three other officials of WBFC entered forcefully into her residence and started abusing and threatening her stating that her husband has committed fraud and is a cheat. She was further pushed by them and they spoke in such a loud and aggressive manner that complainant’s minor daughter became sick. The officer did not examine the relevant witnesses and examinde only one Subhamoy Banerjee who is a business associate of the husband of the complainant. The Investigating Officer has ignored the vital aspect that it is an attempt to install the loan recovery proceeding by the complainant’s husband and filed the charge-sheet in mechanical manner after 4 years from the date of complaint. Hence filed this revision application.

3. The learned Senior Advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioner would submit that the petitioner is a senior citizen being a retired officer on special duty and ex-officio G.M (Administrative, and Training Department) of the West Bengal Financial Corporation (WBFC). On November 11, 2016, the petitioner with three other Senior Officials visited the house of the husband of the Opposite Party no. 2 and on November 11 2016 she lodged a complaint against the present petitioner and others falsely implicating them out of grudge as a loan recovery proceeding was initiated. After the charge- sheet was filed on September 30, 2020 upon a perfunctory investigation on November 9, 2020 the General Manager(O.M.) had sent a reply to the investigating officer and seeing all the relevant documents and informing him that the FIR was nothing but effort on the part of the husband to stall the loan recovery proceedings. After four years from the date of filing of the charge-sheet, it was received in the Court of learned CJM Howrah on November 21 2020.

4. It is the contention of the learned Senior Advocate that the charge-sheet reflects that it was received by the Court inspector, Howrah on September 25, 2021 so the question arises why it was not placed before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Howrah on the same date for taking cognizance. It was placed before the learned CJM only after the petitioner surrendered for bail on October 4, 2021.There is no explanation as to why the statements under Section 161 Cr.P.C of the same set of people had to be recorded twice by the Investigating Officers that is on November 11, 2016 and July 10, 2020. There is no explanation as to why the IO after sending the letter dated September 25, 2020 to the General Manager of WBFC did not wait for his reply and prepared the charge-sheet within five days on November 30, 2020. Why the I.O. did not carry any further investigation after he got the reply from the General Manager which was sent to him on November 9, 2020.

5. It is further argued that the statements of the three officials who had accompanied the petitioner to the Opposite Party’s house were not recorded when in the reply of the General Manager dated September 11, 2020 the names were given to the I.O. that apart those persons were named as accused persons in the FIR, but they were not named in the charge-sheet. It is further submitted that all the three witnesses are interested witnesses including the husband of the de-facto complainant who took loan from WBFC. The three witnesses are the Directors of the company of the husband of the Opposite Party no. 2. The FIR failed to disclose any ingredients of the Office either on that Section 354B or under Section 448 of the Indian Penal Code regarding the offence under Section 506/509 of the Indian Penal Code.

6. This is learned Senior Advocate relied upon the decisions reported in Naresh Aneja versus state of Utta