14.05.2025 (ct. no.03)

DB HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA Circuit Bench at Jalpaiguri Criminal Revisional Jurisdiction CRR No. 436 of 2024 Jagadish Saha Vs.

The State of West Bengal and Anr.

Mr. Aditi Shankar Chakraborty, Ld. App Mr. Kallol Acharjee, Adv.

….. For the State

1. Mr. Aditi Shakar Chakraborty, Additional Public Prosecutor, is appearing for the State.

2. The petitioner has filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, now Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 praying for quashing of the proceeding of G.R. Case no. 2205 of 2010 arising out of Kumargram, P.S. Case No. 239 of 2010, dated 4th November, 2010, under Sections 448/325/379/34 of the IPC including Charge Sheet vide No. 111 of 2014 dated 31st May, 2014 pending before the Court of Learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Alipurduar.

3. Counsel for the petitioner submits that as per the written complaint of the de facto complainant dated 4th November, 2010, the police has initiated an FIR No. 239 of 2010 dated

4th November, 2010 under Section 379 of the IPC against the petitioner, Jagadish Saha and Another, namely, Netai Pada Saha

4. Counsel for the petitioner submits that though the case has been initiated in the year 2010 but the police has submitted charge sheet only in the year of 2014 and the Learned Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate at Alipurduar has taken cognizance on 29th May, 2024.

5. Counsel for the petitioner submits that the police has submitted charge sheet, for alleged offence under Section 448/325/379/34 of the IPC but as per the record, nothing was seized from the petitioner to say that the petitioner has stolen any amount from the possession of the de facto complainant or any alleged amount has been seized from the possession of the petitioner.

6. Counsel for the petitioner submits that the police has filed the charge sheet under Section 325 of the Cr.P.C. but the medical document has relied by the prosecution does speak about any grievous injury or facture which come under the purview of Section 325 of the IPC.

7. Counsel for the petitioner submits that no case under Sections 379 and 325 has made out against the petitioner. He submits that if Section 323 of IPC is taken into consideration against the petitioner, even though the cognizance would be framed by limitation. As the learned Magistrate has taken into cognizance after the period of 3 years from the date of alleged offence.

8. Counsel for the petitioner submits that this is a fit case wherein the proceeding against the petitioner is liable to be quashed.

9. Per Contra, Learned Advocate appearing for the State submits that the police has investigated the matter and after investigation, sufficient material has been collected for the alleged offence under Section 325/379/448/34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 against the petitioner.

10. Counsel for the State submits that sufficient materials are available against the petitioner for the offence under Section 325/379/448/34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.

11. Learned Counsel for the State submits that the victim has sustained grievous injury and he was admitted in the hospital and as such case under Section 325 of the IPC is made out against the petitioner. He further submits that the petitioner along with the co accused had stolen money from the victim and as such the police has invoke the provision of Section 379 of the IPC and this is matter of trial. He submits that there are sufficient materials collected during investigation for the offence under Section 325/379/448/34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.

12. Heard the Learned Counsel for the respective parties, perused the materials on record. This Court finds that, the FIR has been initiated on 4th of November, 2010 for the offence under Section 325/379/448/34 of the IPC. After the investigation the police has been filed a charge sheet for the alleged offence under Section 448/325/379/34 of the IPC dated 31st of May, 2014. Though the police has submitted the charge sheet in the