IMPORTANT POINT
The court emphasized that allegations in an FIR must establish a prima facie case for prosecution, and mechanical charge-sheets without credible evidence can be quashed under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C.

JUDGMENT :

MITALI THAKURIA, J.

1. Heard Mr. P. Bora, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Md. A.A. Hussain, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. P. Borthakur, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State respondent No. 1 and Md. A.A. Hassan, learned counsel for the respondent No. 2.

2. This is an application filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, praying for quashing of the proceeding being Sessions Case No. 223/2019, pending before the Court of learned Additional District & Sessions Judge, Kamrup, Guwahati in connection with Garchuk P.S. Case No. 397/16 dated 27.07.2016 registered under Sections 120(B)/436 of IPC including the Chage-Sheet No. 111/17 dated 29.07.2017.

3. The brief facts of the case are as follows:

3.1. The petitioner was posted as the Factory Manager of Sunrise Biscuit Co. Pvt. Ltd. Gotanagar, Guwahati-33, from January 2014 to August 2016. On 24.07.2016, at about 2:14 A.M. a fire broke out on the factory premises. Upon hearing about the incident from Mr. Bhaskar Jyoti Das, the Maintenance Officer, the petitioner immediately rushed to the factory. He then communicated the incident to the Lokhra Fire and Emergency Service over the telephone. The officials of the Lokhra Fire and Emergency Service arrived at the factory, but prior to their arrival, the management staff had already extinguished the fire. Since the fire was under control, the officials left the premises.

3.2. The petitioner then conducted an inquiry and learnt that the union members including office bearers with host of their union workers first opened the valve of the diesel tank, resulting in approximately 300 liters of diesel gushing out. This was only noticed by the Maintenance Manager after it had happened. Subsequently, the workers set the CBB boxes on fire, which was again controlled by the timely intervention of the management staff. The petitioner was busy investigating the incident and identifying the conspirators behind the fire when some workers became hostile and started manhandling him.

3.3. Later, after collecting evidence, the petitioner went to his chamber to prepare the draft of the FIR against the individuals responsible for the fire incident. Suddenly, the union workers attacked the petitioner and the production manager, Sudipta Pal. The workers entered the petitioner’s chamber, broke the glass panes of the doors, and threatened him with dire consequences if he filed any FIR against them. They also confined the petitioner and his two co-employees, Sudipta Pal and Abhijit Das, until 11:45 P.M.

3.4. Subsequently, the petitioner lodged a complaint on 28.07.2016, which was registered as Gorchuk P.S. Case No. 398/16 under Sections 120(B)/143/436/448/427/342/34 of the IPC. Later, he came to know that another case was pending regarding the fire incident, which had been lodged by officials of the Lokhra Fire and Emergency Service on 27.07.2016. This case was registered as Garchuk P.S. Case No. 397/2016 under Sections 120(B)/436 of the IPC. He also discovered that the investigating officer was searching for him in this case, and the petitioner managed to obtain anticipatory bail from this Court on 05.04.2017.

3.5. Furthermore, on the day following the incident, 25.07.2016, the petitioner reported the entire matter to the higher officials of the company, who instructed him to take appropriate action against the workers. After gathering evidence, 17 workers were found to be involved in the incident and were subsequently dismissed. The management was compelled to issue a notice of temporary closure of the company on 29.07.2016.

3.6. To protect the involved workers, the General Secretary of the Workers' Union rushed to the Garchuk Police Station on 31.07.2016 and lodged a complaint, alleging that Umesh Das, acting on the petitioner’s instructions, had set the factory on fire, and that he had been offered Rs. 5 lakhs. In response to this complaint, Garchuk Police Station registered a case against the petitione