IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA CRIMINAL REVISIONAL JURISDICTION APPELLATE SIDE PRESENT:

THE HON’BLE DR. JUSTICE AJOY KUMAR MUKHERJEE CRR 2090 of 2022 Nani Gopal Biswas Vs.

The State of West Bengal For the petitioner : Mr. Debabrata Ray Mr. Sankar Halder Mr. Soumik Mondal Ms. Sarbani Mukhopadhyay For the State : Mr. Rudradipta Nandy, Ld.APP Heard on : 02.12.2025 Judgment on : 30.01.2026 Dr. Ajoy Kumar Mukherjee, J.

1. Petitioner herein is aggrieved with the proceeding being Tehatta P.S. Case no. 431 of 2016 dated 01.08.2016 under section 467/468/471 of the IPC corresponding to G.R. Case No. 872 of 2016 presently pending before the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate, Tehatta. One Jahangir Mallick, Block Development officer (in short BDO) Tehatta, lodged a first information report alleging commission of offence pertaining to submission of six forged affidavits in connection with prayer for delayed registration of birth, made by six respective persons as reported by Sub Divisional Officer Ranaghat, 2. Being aggrieved by the impugned proceeding Mr. Ray learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that the petitioner is not FIR named and in the FIR no role has been attributed against the petitioner. However, after completion of investigation, the concerned police officer submitted charge sheet in prescribed form against the petitioner keeping column no. 11 as vacant. In column no.14 particulars of 6 witnesses have been mentioned, who are all instrumentalities of the State. No independent witness was cited, who are likely to be examined during trial in order to support the prosecution case.

3. He further submits that in final report the investigating agency incorporated the name of the petitioner in column no.12 without mentioning a single word about petitioner’s role in connection with the alleged offence. The petitioner on receipt of police papers supplied under section 207 of Cr.P.C. came to learn that one FIR named accused namely Nur Hasan Sk, in his statement recorded under section 161 of the Cr.P.C., has mentioned his name, which is the basis of implicating him with the alleged offence. However, no seizure was made from the present petitioner. He further submits that it is trite law that investigating officer must fill up all the columns in the charge sheet, so that the court can clearly understand which crime has been committed by which accused and what it the material evidence available in the file. The role played by each accused in the crime should be separately and clearly mentioned in the charge sheet for each of the accused persons, which is clearly lacking in the present case and in this context he relied upon the judgment of Sharif Ahmed & another Vs.

State of UP and another, 2024 INSC 363.

4. Mr. Ray in this context further argued that statement of a co accused during police custody cannot be the sole basis to place a person on trial. Unless the document is proved to be false and forged in terms of section 464 and 470 of the IPC, the requirement of section 471 does not arise. It is apparent from the record that the petitioner did not use the alleged document for his personal gain and he has also not used the same as genuine and therefore, the ingredients of cheating also does not attract and in this context he relied upon the judgment of Deepak Gava and ors. Vs.

State of UP and another reported in (2023) 3 SCC 423.

5. Learned Counsel for the state opposed the prayer made by the petitioner and submitted that there are sufficient materials in the Case Dairy (CD) against the present petitioner in order to convict the petitioner and as such it would not be proper for the ends of justice to quash the proceeding at this stage. He also placed the CD for perusal of this court.

6. I have meticulously gone into the materials in the CD. It appears that after receiving complaint about submission of forged affidavit in connection with delayed registration of birth, BDO Tehatta had issued notice to 6 persons who are FIR named fo