MyNation KnowledgeBase

Landmark Judgments and Articles on Law

Register to Download

6 Guidelines for Application of Judicial Mind while Invoking Power underneath Section 156(3) Cr.P.C.

IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
CRIMINAL REVISIONAL JURISDICTION
APPELLATE SIDE

Present : The Hon’ble Justice Shivakant Prasad

CRR 730 of 2018
with
CRR 731 of 2018
with
CRR 732 of 2018
with
CRR 733 of 2018
with
CRR 734 of 2018
with
CRR 735 of 2018
with
CRR 736 of 2018
with
CRR 737 of 2018
with
CRR 738 of 2018
with
CRR 1253 of 2018
with
CRAN 1428 of 2018
with
CRR 1233 of 2018
with
CRR 1470 of 2018

Mukul Roy
-Vs.–
The State of West Bengal & Ors.

For a Petitioner : Mr. Paramjit Singh Patwalia
Mr. Sudipto Moitra
Mr. Sumeet Chowdhury
Mr. Saurav Chatterjee
Mr. Subhashis Dasgupta
Mrs. Koel Dasgupta
Mr. Aniruddha Bhattacharyya

For a State : Mr. Kishore Dutta, Ld. Advocate General
Mr. Saswata Gopal Mukherjee, PP
Mr. Sandip Chakraborty
Mr. Ayan Basu
For a O.P. No. 2 : Mr. Siladitya Sanyal
Mr. Dibyendu Chatterjee
Mr. Sikandar Ansari
Mrs. Madhuparna Kanrar
Mr. Siddhartha Ray
Mrs. A. Chowdhury
Mrs. Rituparna Dey

Heard on : 11.6.2018
C.A.V. on : 11.6.2016
Judgment on : 20.7.2018
SHIVAKANT PRASAD, J.
The postulant has approached this Court for quashing of record being G.R. Case No. 1331 of 2018; G.R. Case No. 1332 of 2018; G.R. Case No. 1333 of 2018; G.R. Case No. 1334 of 2018; G.R. Case No. 1335 of 2018; G.R. Case No. 1336 of 2018; G.R. Case No. 1337 of 2018; G.R. Case No. 1338 of 2018 and G.R. Case No. 1370 of 2018 opening out of Bizpore Police Station Case No. 161 of 2018; No. 162 of 2018; No. 163 of 2018; No. 164 of 2018; No. 165 of 2018; No. 166 of 2018; No. 167 of 2018; No. 168 of 2018 and No. 169 of 2018 all antiquated 12.3.2018 underneath Sections 420/406 of a Indian Penal Code respectively and instruction antiquated 09.3.2018 upheld by a schooled Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Barrackpore, North 24-Parganas in M.P. Case No. 456 of 2018; No. 457 of 2018; No. 458 of 2018; No. 459 of 2018; No. 461 of 2018; No. 460 of 2018; No. 462 of 2018; No. 470 of 2018 and No. 469 of 2018 respectively tentative in a Court of schooled Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Barrackpore, North 24 Parganas thereby directing a Inspector-in-charge, Bizpore Police Station to provide a applications underneath Section 156(3) of a Code of Criminal Procedure as a FIRs and start investigation. Re: CRR 1253 of 2018; CRR 1233 of 2018 and CRR 1470 of 2018 Whereas in a aforesaid 3 revisional cases a postulant has also approached this Court for quashing of record being G.R. Case No. 8471 of 2017 opening out of Jagatdal Police Station Case No. 1561 of 2017 antiquated 25.12.2017 underneath Sections 420/406 of a Indian Penal Code; G.R. Case No. 2643 of 2018 opening out of Naihati Police Station Case No. 335 of 2018 antiquated 15.5.2018 underneath Sections 420/406/468/471/34 of a Indian Penal Code and G.R. Case No. 3204 of 2018 opening out of Noapara Police Station Case No. 192 of 2018 antiquated 03.6.2018 underneath Sections 420/406/467/468/471/472/120B/34 of a Indian Penal Code tentative before a schooled Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Barrackpore, North 24 Parganas.

All a above mentioned cases have been listened as a emanate endangered in all a cases are common, a same might be expected of by a common judgment.

At a outset, Mr. Paramjit Singh Patwalia schooled comparison warn for a postulant during a opening submitted that a schooled Magistrate has acted in a automatic and obvious demeanour and a same is apparent from a fact that a Learned Magistrate merely filled adult a blanks in a formerly typed out sequence piece that is unconditionally bootleg in perspective of Rule 183 of Calcutta High Court Criminal (Subordinate Courts) Rules 1985.

Secondly, it has been argued that a supposed allegations in First Information Report describe to a year 2012 since a focus underneath Section 156(3) of a Code of Criminal Procedure was filed as late as on 09.3.2018 nonetheless any reason as to lavish check in filing focus underneath Section 156(3) of a Code. Thus, it demonstrates a excitement and malafide in a outset of a impugned move by a conflicting celebration no. 2 conflicting a petitioner.

Thirdly, Mr. Patwalia invited my courtesy to a fact that a postulant was a Minister of Railways in a Union Cabinet on and from April, 2012. However, no before permit underneath Section 197 Cr.P.C. was achieved for assign as compulsory underneath Section 156(3) of a Code before induction a First Information Report conflicting a petitioner.

Fourthly, it is submitted for a consequence of justification that even if a claim in a First Information Report is believed to be true, it is not a box of a Opposite Party No. 2 that he handed over any income to a petitioner. Therefore, roping a postulant as an indicted clearly appears to be an abuse of a slight of rapist law to harass and disparage a petitioner.

The postulant serve submitted that even if a claim in a First Information Report is believed to be true, it would seem that a Opposite Party No. 2 split with income to discreetly and illegally obtain a pursuit in a Railways. Such transaction even if is believed to be loyal can't be a central transaction and hence is differently not enforceable in a Court of Law in perspective of sections 23/24 of a Indian Contract Act. Therefore, outset and /or check of a impugned rapist record on such allegations are not maintainable.

Mr. Patwalia fortified his justification with acquiescence that a impugned rapist record are manifestly attended with mala fides and has been maliciously instituted by a Opposite Party No. 2 with an apart belligerent of wrecking reprisal on a postulant and with a perspective to annoy him due to domestic hate and to harass him. It is contended that after disjunction his organisation with TMC in Nov 2017, a postulant is being secretly endangered in a array of rapist cases lodged in several places in a State of West Bengal and a misrepresentation debate has commenced conflicting him in sequence to unleash domestic fight and a impugned whimsical rapist cases have been instituted to abuse a slight of rapist law.

It is also submitted that a postulant conjunction knows a Opposite Party No.2 privately nor had any arise to accommodate him during any prove of time and it appears that a Opposite Party No. 2 has been used as a attract to unleash domestic fight conflicting a postulant by abusing and misusing a slight of a Court inasmuch as a Opposite Party No. 2 in his focus underneath Section 156(3) of a Code has unsuccessful to name any declare who can benefaction a allegations conflicting a petitioner.

Learned Senior Counsel for a postulant submitted that a mixture of offences underneath Section 406 of a Indian Penal Code are utterly conflicting from a mixture of crime underneath territory 420 of a Indian Penal Code and no one can be penalized for elect of both a offences together.

It is staid component of law that in “criminal crack of trust”, a indicted comes into possession of a skill or acquires control over a skill overtly and bona fide, nonetheless he develops prejudiced goal successive to a holding possession of, or successive to carrying acquired a control over a skill and carrying grown such prejudiced intention, he dishonestly misappropriates a skill or dishonestly uses or disposes of a skill in defilement of any instruction of law prescribing a mode in that such trust is to be discharged, or of any authorised contract, demonstrate or implied, that he has finished touching a liberate of such trust, or designedly causes any other chairman so to do. Thus, in “criminal crack of trust”, a goal of a indicted can't be prejudiced or mala fide during a time when he comes into possession of a skill or comes to acquire control over a property; but, carrying come into possession of, or carrying acquired control over a property, a indicted develops prejudiced goal and actuated by such mens rea, he translates to his possess use a skill or dishonestly uses or disposes of a skill in defilement of any instruction of law prescribing a mode in that such trust is to be discharged, or of any authorised contract, demonstrate or implied, that he has finished touching a liberate of such trust, or designedly causes any other chairman so to do. Contrary to “criminal crack of trust”, a goal of a accused, in a box of “cheating” is prejudiced from a unequivocally derivation of a transaction. There is unequivocally no agree by a person, who is intentionally prompted by dishonesty to broach a skill or concede any chairman to keep a skill or is intentionally induced, as a outcome of deception, to do or replace to do anything, that he would not do or replace to do if he were not so deceived, and that act or repudiation causes or is expected to means repairs or mistreat to that chairman in body, mind, repute or property.

It is submitted that a impugned sequence antiquated 9.3.2018 upheld by a Learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Barrackpore, North 24 Parganas has in outcome given an eventuality to a Investigating Agency to harass and disparage a postulant by regulating a coercive powers and also to fill adult a lacunae by importing whimsical witnesses to support a differently vale and groundless allegations leveled in a focus underneath Section 156(3) of a Code of Criminal Procedure.

In perspective of a averment in a First Information Report that a Opposite Party No. 2 did not palm over any income to a petitioner, there can't be any doubt of entrustment, that is a sine-qua-non for creation out an crime of rapist crack of trust. As such no box underneath territory 406 of a Indian Penal Code is finished out. A unclothed reading of a First Information Report would uncover that there is no averment therein that a postulant participated in any bootleg act so as to fraudulently and dishonestly satisfy a Opposite Party No. 2 to partial with money. Therefore, no box of intrigue punishable underneath Section 420 of a Indian Penal Code can be pronounced to have been finished out.

Mr. Patwalia has relied on preference of a Hon’ble Supreme Court in Priyanka Srivastava vs. State of U.P. (2015) 6 SCC 287 to disagree that in cases where there is aberrant check in initiating rapist proceedings, there ought to be sufficient reason for such delay. He has also argued that in such cases and in cases of claim of corruption, a Learned Magistrate ought to sequence a rough enquiry instead of induction an FIR. He has serve argued that focus underneath Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C. should justification that before applications underneath Section 154(1) & 154(3) Cr.P.C. have been filed. The focus underneath Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C. should also be upheld by an confirmation and a Learned Magistrate should establish a sincerity of a allegations finished in a application.

Reliance is also placed on preference of a Hon’ble Supreme Court in Anil Kumar Vs. M.K. Aiyappa (2013) 10 SCC 705 to disagree that a Magistrate can't impute a matter underneath Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C. conflicting a open menial nonetheless a current permit sequence u/s 19(1) of a PC Act and that a focus of mind by a Magistrate so as to sequence review u/s 156(3) Cr.P.C. should be reflected in a sequence and in a eventuality such crime has been supposed to have been committed by a open menial in liberate of central duty, believe of crime or grouping review u/s 156(3) Cr.P.C. is barred by Section 197 of Cr.P.C. unless before permit has been achieved from a suitable authority. The Hon’ble Supreme Court has serve reason that such sustenance is imperative in nature.

Attention of this Court has been drawn to para 11 of a visualisation that is as follows: “11. The operation of Section 156(3) CrPC came adult for care before this Court in several cases. This Court in Maksud Saiyed [(2008) 5 SCC 668] examined a requirement of a focus of mind by a Magistrate before sportive bureau underneath Section 156(3) and reason that where bureau is exercised on a censure filed in terms of Section 156(3) or Section 200 CrPC, a Magistrate is compulsory to request his mind, in such a case, a Special Judge/Magistrate can't impute a matter underneath Section 156(3) conflicting a open menial nonetheless a current permit order. The focus of mind by a Magistrate should be reflected in a order. The small matter that he has left by a complaint, papers and listened a complainant, as such, as reflected in a order, will not be sufficient. After going by a complaint, papers and conference a complainant, what weighed with a Magistrate to sequence review underneath Section 156(3) CrPC, should be reflected in a order, nonetheless a minute countenance of his views is conjunction compulsory nor warranted. We have already extracted a sequence upheld by a schooled Special Judge which, in a view, has staid no reasons for grouping investigation.”

He has argued that in a benefaction box there is no permit sequence u/s 19(1) of a PC Act and a impugned sequence u/s 156(3) Cr.P.C. is strike by Section 197 of Cr.P.C.

Mr. Kishore Dutta schooled Advocate General of West Bengal and Mr. Saswata Gopal Mukherjee, schooled Public Prosecutor appearing for a State Opposite Party has sought to heed a visualisation by arguing that a permit underneath Section 19 of a PC Act or Section 197 Cr.P.C. is not compulsory in a benefaction box as a acts supposed to have been committed by a postulant can't be pronounced to have been committed in liberate of his central duty.

In rebuttal, Mr. Patwalia relied on a preference of Hon’ble Supreme Court in State of Madhya Pradesh Vs. Sheetla Sahai and Others (2009) 3 SCC (Cri) 901 to disagree that permit u/s 197 of Cr.P.C. is also compulsory for persons who were open servants mouth-watering my courtesy of this Court to para 56 of a visualisation that is reads as follows:

“56. Strong faith has been placed by Mr. Tulsi on a visualisation of this Court in Centre for Public Interest Litigation and Another v. Union of India and Another [(2005) 8 SCC 202]. In that case, it was held:
“9. The insurance given underneath Section 197 is to strengthen obliged open servants conflicting a establishment of presumably resentful rapist record for offences supposed to have been committed by them while they are behaving or purporting to act as open servants. The slight of a legislature is to means adequate insurance to open servants to safeguard that they are not prosecuted for anything finished by them in a liberate of their central duties nonetheless reasonable cause, and if permit is granted, to consult on a Government, if they select to practice it, finish control of a prosecution.
This insurance has certain boundary and is accessible usually when a supposed act finished by a open menial is pretty connected with a liberate of his central avocation and is not merely a disguise for doing a disgusting act. If in doing his central duty, he acted in additional of his duty, nonetheless there is a reasonable tie between a act and a opening of a central duty, a additional will not be a sufficient belligerent to dispossess a open menial from a protection. The doubt is not as to a inlet of a crime such as presumably a supposed crime contained an component indispensably contingent on a delinquent being a open servant, nonetheless presumably it was committed by a open menial behaving or purporting to act as such in a liberate of his central capacity. Before Section 197 can be invoked, it contingency be shown that a central endangered was indicted of an crime supposed to have been committed by him while behaving or purporting to act in a liberate of his central duties. It is not a avocation that requires hearing so most as a act, since a central act can be achieved both in a liberate of a central avocation as good as in desertion of it. The act contingency tumble within a operation and operation of a central duties of a open menial concerned. It is a peculiarity of a act that is critical and a insurance of this territory is accessible if a act falls within a operation and operation of his central duty. There can't be any visualisation sequence to establish presumably there is a reasonable tie between a act finished and a central duty, nor is it probable to lay down any such rule. One stable and certain exam in this courtesy would be to cruise if a repudiation or slight on a partial of a open menial to dedicate a act complained of could have finished him obliged for a assign of desertion of his central duty. If a answer to this doubt is in a affirmative, it might be pronounced that such act was committed by a open menial while behaving in a liberate of his central avocation and there was any tie with a act complained of and a central avocation of a open servant. This aspect creates it transparent that a visualisation of Section 197 does not get immediately captivated on establishment of a censure case.
10. Use of a countenance “official duty” implies that a act or repudiation contingency have been finished by a open menial in a march of his use and that it should have been in liberate of his duty. The territory does not extend a safeguarding cover to any act or repudiation finished by a open menial in use nonetheless restricts a operation of operation to usually those acts or omissions that are finished by a open menial in liberate of central duty.
11. If on facts, therefore, it is prima facie found that a act or repudiation for that a indicted was charged had reasonable tie with liberate of his avocation afterwards it contingency be reason to be central to that qualification of Section 197 of a Code can't be disputed.”
Relying on a decision, he has serve argued that inasmuch as a act complained of conflicting a postulant would have finished him obliged for a assign of desertion of his central duty, such supposed act, if during all committed, was committed by a postulant while behaving in liberate of his central duty. As such permit u/s 197 Cr.P.C. was compulsory before to holding believe of crime or grouping review u/s 156(3) Cr.P.C.
Mr. Patwalia has also relied on preference of a Hon’ble Supreme Court in Manju Surana Vs. Sunil Arora (2018) 5 SCC 557 to disagree that even during a theatre of flitting sequence u/s 156(3) Cr.P.C., a Magistrate needs to request his mind and form an opinion to ensue review by a military conflicting any accused. He has argued that small discuss of a chairman as an indicted is not sufficient belligerent to embody his name for a purpose of investigation, some-more so when a claim conflicting a postulant has been finished in honour of his purpose as Railway Minister. Relying on a judgment, he serve argued that a Magistrate ought to have taken note of a fact that a censure disclosed no sequence between a indicted and a act complained of.

READ  Exhibition of documents at subsequent stage is permissible?

Attention of this Court has been drawn to para 44 of a visualisation cited above that is reproduced for essential estimation of contribution and law as under–

“44. Merely since a appellant has roped in respondent No.1 in a censure is not sufficient belligerent to concede his name to be enclosed as such. The censure is certain – a purpose of Secretary, PHED and a Principal Secretary has been questioned. That is a mindset with that a complainant knocked a doors of a rapist courts. There was no claim in honour of any purpose played by a Secretary/Principal Secretary to a Chief Minister. It can't be pronounced to be a small mis-description of name, that can be corrected. It can't be a mount of a appellant that willy- nilly somehow, respondent No.1 contingency sojourn decorated as an indicted in those proceedings, even nonetheless a record before a Magistrate are during a theatre of usually presumably there should be a instruction for review or not. It is not that any officer in a Government has to be decorated in honour of any purpose achieved or not. The small appearance in one assembly of respondent No.1 and that too when he was not a signatory and unequivocally had no purpose to play in that capacity, as apparent from a minutes, can't be now used to transparent his name being enclosed as an accused. This is clearly an afterthought. It is not for a appellant to doubt as to that officer should or should not be present.”
Mr. Patwalia also cited a structure dais preference of a Hon’ble Supreme Court in State of Haryana vs. Bhajan Lal (1992) 2 SCC (Cri) 426 to enumerate a categories of cases where a High Court can practice a energy underneath Section 482 of Cr.P.C. to forestall abuse of slight of law or secure ends of justice. He states that a Supreme Court has reason that where a rapist move is manifestly attended with mala fide or has been maliciously instituted with apart belligerent for wrecking reprisal on a indicted or to annoy him due to private grudge, a High Court can practice a elemental powers to stifle such rapist record by adverting to para 102 of a visualisation that is as follows:

“102. In a backdrop of a interpretation of a several germane supplies of a Code underneath Chapter XIV and of a beliefs of law enunciated by this Court in a array of decisions relating to a practice of a unusual energy underneath Article 226 or a elemental powers underneath Section 482 of a Code that we have extracted and reproduced above, we give a following categories of cases by ensue of painting wherein such energy could be exercised presumably to forestall abuse of a slight of any probity or differently to secure a ends of justice, nonetheless it might not be probable to lay down any precise, clearly tangible and amply channelised and resistant discipline or firm formulae and to give an downright list of innumerable kinds of cases wherein such energy should be exercised. (1) Where a allegations finished in a initial information news or a complaint, even if they are taken during their face value and supposed in their entirety do not prima facie consecrate any crime or make out a box conflicting a accused.
(2) Where a allegations in a initial information news and other materials, if any, concomitant a FIR do not divulge a cognizable offence, justifying an review by military officers underneath Section 156(1) of a Code solely underneath an sequence of a Magistrate within a strech of Section 155(2) of a Code.
(3) Where a uncontroverted allegations finished in a FIR or censure and a justification collected in support of a same do not divulge a elect of any crime and make out a box conflicting a accused.
(4) Where, a allegations in a FIR do not consecrate a cognizable crime nonetheless consecrate usually a non- cognizable offence, no review is accessible by a military officer nonetheless an sequence of a Magistrate as contemplated underneath Section 155(2) of a Code.
(5) Where a allegations finished in a FIR or censure are so absurd and inherently extraordinary on a basement of that no advantageous chairman can ever strech a usually finish that there is sufficient belligerent for move conflicting a accused.
(6) Where there is an demonstrate authorised bar engrafted in any of a supplies of a Code or a endangered Act (under that a rapist move is instituted) to a establishment and continuation of a record and/or where there is a specific sustenance in a Code or a endangered Act, providing influential calibrate for a protest of a depressed party.
(7) Where a rapist move is manifestly attended with mala fide and/or where a move is maliciously instituted with an apart belligerent for wreaking reprisal on a indicted and with a perspective to annoy him due to private and personal grudge.”
Accordingly, he argued with force that in a benefaction case, a rapist record have been filed conflicting a postulant in a year 2018 in honour of supposed acts committed in a year 2012 and that outset of such record coincide with his change of domestic celebration final that rapist cases have been filed as partial of a domestic fight conflicting a postulant that are mala fide and secretly instituted to annoy and harass a postulant and that this Court ought to demeanour into a credentials of a box for sportive a energy underneath Section 482 of Cr.P.C. He contended that if a slight of Court is sought to be abused by any chairman with ambiguous motive, such try has to be nipped in a blossom and a rapist record can't be authorised to go on if a box falls in one of a categories enumerated in Bhajan Lal’s case. Relying on a settlement of a Hon’ble Supreme Court in Vineet Kumar vs. State of U.P. (2017) 13 SCC 369, schooled warn for a postulant has argued that authorised record can't be authorised to be converted into an instrument of hardship or nuisance if there are materials to prove that a rapist move is manifestly attended with mala fide, a High Court ought to practice a energy underneath Section 482 Cr.P.C. and stifle record in terms of ratio laid down in a Constitution Bench preference in box of State of Haryana and others v. Bhajan Lal and others (1992) SCC (Cri) 426 wherein during divide 102 parameters and resistant discipline have been illustrated by giving categories of box by ensue of painting for practice of additional typical energy underneath Article 226 or elemental powers underneath Section 482 of a Code to forestall abuse of a slight of any probity or differently to secure a ends of justice. One of such painting is where a rapist move is manifestly attended with masculine fide and/or where a move is maliciously instituted with an apart belligerent for wreaking reprisal on a indicted and with a perspective to annoy him due to private and personal grudge.

The Hon’ble Supreme Court in box of Karnatake v. M. Devendrappa (2002) 3 SCC 89 had a arise to cruise a ambit of Section 482 Cr.P.C. and reason thus–

“8…..Judicial slight should not be an instrument of oppression, or, unnecessary harassment. Court should be wary and prudent in sportive choice and should take all germane contribution and resources into care before outset process, lest it would be an instrument in a hands of a private complainant to unleash fight to harass any chairman needlessly. At a same time a territory is not an instrument handed over to an indicted to short-circuit a assign and move about a remarkable death. The operation of practice of energy underneath Section 482 of a Code and a categories of cases where a High Court might practice a energy underneath it relating to cognizable offences to forestall abuse of slight of any probity or differently to secure a ends of probity were set out in some fact by this Court in State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal.”
In this preference to Hon’ble Supreme Court irreproachable a ratio as laid down in Bhajan Lal box with courtesy to elemental energy of a High Court underneath Section 482 Code of Criminal Procedure is with a purpose and observant of enrichment of justice.

Per contra, Mr. Dutta schooled warn for a State Opposite Parties relied on a preference of a Hon’ble Supreme Court in HDFC Securities Ltd. Vs. State of Maharastra (2017) 1 SCC 640 to disagree that practice of energy underneath Section 482 of Cr.P.C. or Article 227 of a Constitution of India should be finished sparingly and that in a benefaction case, such practice of energy will be beforehand and adverted courtesy of this Court to para 27 of a visualisation that is as follows:

“27. It appears to us that a Appellants approached a High Court even before a theatre of distribution of process. In particular, a Appellants challenged a sequence antiquated 04.01.2011 upheld by a schooled Magistrate Under Section 156(3) of Code of Criminal Procedure. The schooled Counsel appearing on seductiveness of a Appellants after summarizing their arguments in a matter have emphasized also in a context of a elemental rights of a Appellants underneath a Constitution, that a sequence impugned has caused grave inequities to a Appellants. In a circumstances, it was submitted that a sequence is bootleg and is an abuse of a slight of law. However, it appears to us that this sequence Under Section 156(3) of Code of Criminal Procedure requiring review by a police, can't be pronounced to have caused an repairs of lost inlet which, during this stage, requires quashing of a investigation. We contingency keep in a mind that a theatre of believe would arise usually after a review news is filed before a Magistrate. Therefore, in a opinion, during this theatre a High Court has rightly assessed a contribution and a law in this conditions and reason that filing of a petitions Under Article 227 of a Constitution of India or Under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure, during this theatre are zero nonetheless premature. Further, in a opinion, a High Court rightly came to a finish that a elemental powers of a Court underneath Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure should be sparingly used. ”
The postulant has sought to heed a settlement in HDFC Securities Ltd. Vs. State of Maharastra, by saying that a Hon’ble Supreme Court did not reason that energy underneath Section 482 of Cr.P.C. or Article 227 of a Constitution of India can't be exercised during a theatre of registration of an FIR, nonetheless usually reason that a High Court had rightly assessed a contribution and law in such box and reason in a contribution of such case, a sequence underneath Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C. requiring review by military could not be pronounced to have caused an repairs of lost inlet which, during such stage, compulsory quashing of investigation. He has also argued that a contribution of such box are wholly conflicting from a one in hand.

Mr. Dutta serve argued that in a benefaction case, no permit underneath Section 197 Cr.P.C. was compulsory as a offences committed by a Petitioner can't be pronounced to have been committed in liberate of his central duties. Relying on a visualisation of a Hon’ble Supreme Court in Rajib Ranjan Vs. Vijaykumar (2015) 1 SCC 513, he has argued that even while liberate of central duties, if a open menial enters into a rapist swindling or indulges in rapist misconduct, such malfeasance on his partial is not to be treated as an act in liberate of central avocation and hence Section 197 Cr.P.C. is not captivated in perspective of a observations finished in a following paras of a cited judgment:

“15. The sanction, however, is compulsory if a crime supposed conflicting open menial is committed by him “while behaving or purporting to act in a liberate of his central duties”. In sequence to find out as to presumably a supposed crime is committed while behaving or purporting to act in a liberate of his central duty, following yardstick is supposing by this Court in Dr. Budhikota Subbarao (supra) in a following words: “6. … If on facts, therefore, it is prima facie found that a act or repudiation for that a indicted was charged had reasonable tie with liberate of his avocation afterwards it contingency be reason to be central to that qualification of Section 197 of a Code can't be disputed.”
16. This component was explained in some some-more fact in a box of Raghunath Anant Govilkar v. State of Maharashtra, that was motionless by this Court on 08.02.2008 in SLP (Crl.) No. 5453 of 2007, in a following manner:
“11. ‘7 … “66. … On a doubt of a qualification of Section 197 of a Code of Criminal Procedure, a component laid down in dual cases, namely, Shreekantiah Ramayya Munipalli v. State of Bombay and Amrik Singh v. State of Pepsu was as follows:
8. … It is not any crime committed, by a open menial that requires permit for assign Under Section 197(1) of Criminal Procedure Cod; nor even any act finished by him while he is indeed observant in a opening of his central duties; nonetheless if a act complained of is directly endangered with his central duties so that, if questioned, it could be claimed to have been finished by trait of a office, afterwards permit would be necessary. …”
The genuine doubt therefore, is presumably a acts complained of in a benefaction box were directly endangered with a central duties of a 3 open servants. As apart as a crime of rapist swindling punishable Under Sections 120B review with Section 409 of a Indian Penal Code is endangered and also Section 5(2) of a Prevention of Corruption Act, are endangered they can't be pronounced to be of a inlet mentioned in Section 197 of a Code of Criminal Procedure. To put it shortly, it is no partial of a avocation of a open servant, while discharging his central duties, to enter into a rapist swindling or to indulge in rapist misconduct. Want of permit Under Section 197 of a Code of Criminal Procedure is, therefore, no bar.
17. Likewise, in Shambhoo Nath Misra v. State of U.P. and others, (1997) 5 SCC 326, a Court dealt with a theme in a following manner:
“5. The doubt is when a open menial is supposed to have committed a crime of phony of record or misappropriation of open account etc. can be pronounced to have acted in liberate of his central duties? It is not a central avocation of a open menial to fashion a fake record and misemploy a open supports etc. in avail of or in a liberate of his central duties. The central ability usually enables him to fashion a record or misemploy a open account etc. It does not meant that it is integrally connected or inseparably interlinked with a crime committed in a march of same transaction, as was believed by a schooled Judge. Under these circumstances, we are of a opinion that a perspective voiced by a High Court as good as by a hearing Court on a doubt of permit is clearly bootleg and can't be sustained.”
18. The ratio of a aforesaid cases, that is clearly discernible, is that even while discharging his central duties, if a open menial enters into a rapist swindling or indulges in rapist misconduct, such malfeasance on his partial is not to be treated as an act in liberate of his central duties and, therefore, supplies of Section 197 of a Code will not be attracted. …”
The petitioner, while not encountering a authorised tender laid down by a Hon’ble Supreme Court in Rajib Ranjan Vs. Vijaykumar (supra) has argued that a acts complained of conflicting a postulant were in honour of supposed acts committed by him in liberate of central avocation and in a contribution of a box of Rajib Ranjan, a Hon’ble Supreme Court was gratified to stifle a rapist record conflicting a open servants.

READ  Scrutinize the allegations carefully against close relatives of husband when FIR is filed under S. 498-A IPC

Next, Mr. Dutta referred to a preference in box of Dineshbhai Chandubhai Patel vs The State of Gujarat (2018) 3 Supreme Court Cases 104 to disagree that a High Court, in practice of a elemental powers, can't act like an questioning group nor can practice a powers like an appellate Court. He argues that a High Court, during this stage, can't interpretation a justification and if a FIR discloses prima facie case, High Court ought to stay a palm and concede a questioning machine to inspect and draws my courtesy to a following paragraphs reproduced as under–

“29. The High Court, in a view, unsuccessful to see a border of a jurisdiction, that it possess to practice while examining a legality of any FIR angry elect of several cognizable offences by indicted persons. In sequence to inspect as to presumably a significant essence of a FIR divulge any prima facie cognizable offences or not, a High Court can't act like an questioning group and nor can practice a powers like an appellate Court. The question, in a opinion, was compulsory to be examined gripping in perspective a essence of a FIR and prima facie material, if any, requiring no proof.
30. At this stage, a High Court could not interpretation a justification nor could pull a possess inferences from a essence of a FIR and a component relied on. It was some-more so when a component relied on was doubtful by a Complainants and visa-se-versa. In such a situation, it becomes a pursuit of a questioning management during such theatre to inspect and afterwards of a Court to inspect a questions once a assign piece is filed along with such component as to how apart and to what border faith can be placed on such material.
31. In a warn opinion, once a Court finds that a FIR does divulge prima facie elect of any cognizable offence, it should stay a palm and concede a questioning machine to step in to trigger a inspect to unearth a crime in suitability with a procession prescribed in a Code.
33. The elemental powers of a High Court, that are apparently not tangible being elemental in a unequivocally nature, can't be stretched to any border and nor can such powers be alike with a appellate powers of a High Court tangible in a Code. The parameters laid down by this Court while sportive elemental powers contingency always be kept in mind else it would lead to committing a jurisdictional blunder in determining a case. Such is a box here.”
By relying on a above tender Mr. Dutta has vehemently argued that in a benefaction box a First Information Report divulge a cognizable crime on unclothed reading of a same and creates out a prima facie box conflicting a postulant and review ought to be conducted in a matter.

There is no brawl to a authorised tender laid down by a Hon’ble Supreme Court in Dineshbhai box (supra) nonetheless a contribution of aforesaid box is wholly conflicting and not apposite to a contribution and resources of a benefaction box as no prima facie box finished out as regards impasse of a postulant in a crime allegedly committed.

Mr. Dutta relying on a preference in box of Raghunath Anant Govilkar Vs. State of Maharashtra (2009) 1 Supreme Court Cases (Cri) 130, has submitted that permit for assign as compulsory underneath Section 197(1) of a Code of Criminal Procedure in honour to late Government menial is germane if a crime was relatable to central avocation nonetheless a supposed crime committed by a postulant does not tumble within a ambit of Section 197 Cr.P.C. hence, doubt of permit does not arise.

Attention of this Court has been drawn to para 7 of a visualisation that is as follows: “7. “5. The pivotal emanate i.e. qualification of Section 197 Cr.P.C. needs clever consideration. In Bakhshish Singh Brar v. Gurmej Kaur (1987 (4) SCC 663), this Court while emphasizing on a change between insurance to a officers and a insurance to a adults celebrated as follows: ‘6. …It is compulsory to strengthen a open servants in a liberate of their duties. In a contribution and resources of any box insurance of open officers and open servants functioning in liberate of central duties and insurance of private adults have to be offset by anticipating cut as to what border and how apart is a open menial operative in liberate of his duties or supposed liberate of his duties, and presumably a open menial has exceeded his limit. It is loyal that Section (sic197) states that no believe can be taken and even after believe carrying been taken if contribution come to light that a acts complained of were finished in a liberate of a central duties afterwards a hearing might have to be stayed unless permit is obtained. But during a same time it has to be emphasised that rapist trials should not be stayed in all cases during a rough theatre since that will means good repairs to a evidence.’

8. The insurance given underneath Section 197 Cr.P.C. is to strengthen obliged open servants conflicting a establishment of presumably resentful rapist record for offences supposed to have been committed by them while they are behaving or adequate insurance to open servants to safeguard that they are not prosecuted for anything finished by them, in a liberate of their central duties nonetheless reasonable cause, and if permit is granted, to consult on a Government, if it chooses to practice it, finish control of a prosecution. This insurance has certain boundary and is accessible usually when a supposed act finished by a open menial is pretty connected with a liberate of his central avocation and is not merely a disguise for doing a disgusting act. If in doing his central duty, he acted in additional of his duty, nonetheless there is a reasonable tie between a act and a opening of a central duty, a additional will not be a sufficient belligerent to dispossess a open menial from a protection. The doubt is not as to a inlet of a crime such as presumably a supposed crime contained an component indispensably contingent on a delinquent being a open servant, nonetheless presumably it was committed by a open menial behaving or purporting to act as such in a liberate of his central capacity. Before Section 197 Cr.P.C. can be invoked, it contingency be shown that a central endangered was indicted of an crime supposed to have been committed by him while behaving or purporting to act in a liberate of his central capacity. It is not a avocation that requires hearing so most as a act, since a central act can be achieved both in a liberate of a central avocation as good as in desertion of it. The act contingency tumble within a operation and operation of a central duties of a open menial concerned. It is a peculiarity of a act that is critical and a insurance of a territory is accessible if a act falls within a operation and operation of his central duty. There can't be any visualisation sequence to establish presumably there is a reasonable tie between a act finished and a central duty, nor is it probable to lay down any such rule. One stable and certain exam in this courtesy would be to cruise if a repudiation or slight on a partial of a open menial to dedicate a act complained of could have finished him obliged for a assign of desertion of his central duty: if a answer to this doubt is in a affirmative, it might be pronounced that such act was committed by a open menial while behaving in a liberate of his central avocation and there was any tie with a act complained of and a central avocation of a open servant. This aspect creates it transparent that a visualisation of Section 197 Cr.P.C. does not get immediately captivated on establishment of a censure case.”

Mr. Dutta also referred to a preference in box of Lalita Kumari Vs. Government of Uttar Pradesh and others (2014) 2 SCC 1, and submitted that it is imperative to register an FIR if a information given to a military discloses a elect of a cognizable crime and discretion and credit of a information is not a condition fashion for registration of a case. He therefore contends that such review can't be left into by a military or a Magistrate before an FIR is registered.

Attention of this Court has been drawn to following paragraphs of a judgment: ” The use of a word “shall” in Section 154(1) of a Code clearly shows a legislative observant that it is imperative to register an FIR if a information given to a military discloses a elect of a cognizable offence.

A examination of a above-referred judgments explain that a discretion or creditability of a information is not a condition fashion for a registration of a case.” In come-back Mr. Patwalia assisted by Mr. Mitra schooled warn for a postulant on a other palm have drawn my courtesy to a following paragraphs of Lalita Kumari (supra) to disagree that a petitions of censure in all aforesaid cases do not divulge any cognizable crime committed by a postulant and a rough exploration should have been commenced before registration of a FIR, some-more so when a claim was that of crime and there has been aberrant check in filing of rapist proceedings:

“115. Although, we, in undeniable terms, reason that Section 154 of a Code postulates a imperative registration of FIRs on receipt of all cognizable offence, yet, there might be instances where rough exploration might be compulsory overdue to a change in birth and newness of crimes with a thoroughfare of time….” ” 117. In a context of offences relating to corruption, this Court in P. Sirajuddin (supra) voiced a need for a rough exploration before move conflicting open servants.” “119. Therefore, in perspective of several conflicting claims per registration or non-registration, what is compulsory is usually that a information given to a military contingency divulge a elect of a cognizable offence. In such a situation, registration of an FIR is mandatory. However, if no cognizable crime is finished out in a information given, afterwards a FIR need not be purebred immediately and maybe a military can control a arrange of rough corroboration or exploration for a singular purpose of ascertaining as to presumably a cognizable crime has been committed. But, if a information given clearly mentions a elect of a cognizable offence, there is no other choice nonetheless to register an FIR forthwith. Other considerations are not germane during a theatre of registration of FIR, such as, presumably a information is secretly given, presumably a information is genuine, presumably a information is convincing etc. These are a issues that have to be accurate during a review of a FIR. At a theatre of registration of FIR, what is to be seen is merely presumably a information given ex facie discloses a elect of a cognizable offence. If, after investigation, a information given is found to be false, there is always an choice to prosecute a complainant for filing a fake FIR.”
I am in deferential care of a preference cited above and faith placed by schooled warn for both a parties we am in agreement with Mr. Dutta that a registration of an FIR is imperative underneath Section 154 of a Code, if a information discloses elect of a cognizable crime and no rough exploration is slight in such a situation. If a information perceived does not divulge a cognizable crime nonetheless indicates a prerequisite for an inquiry, a rough exploration might be conducted usually to discern presumably cognizable crime is disclosed or not. As to what form and in that cases rough exploration is to be conducted will count on a contribution and resources of any case.

The difficulty of cases in that rough exploration might be finished are (a) Matrimonial disputes/ family disputes; (b) Commercial offences; (c) Medical loosening cases; (d) Corruption cases and (e) Cases where there is aberrant delay/laches in initiating rapist prosecution, for example, over 3 months check in stating a matter nonetheless satisfactorily explaining a reasons for check etc. as reason in a cited decision.

Now, we am called on to give unclothed reading of a First Information Report in a aforesaid cases.

It emerges on unclothed examination of a essence of a First Information Report that a conflicting celebration No. 2 in a particular cases did not palm over any income to a benefaction petitioner, so as to interpret an crime of rapist crack of trust underneath territory 406 of a Indian Penal Code as there is no delegation of a same to a petitioner.

It also reflects from a First Information Report that there is no claim in transparent tenure finished out conflicting a postulant per his appearance in any bootleg act so as to fraudulently and dishonestly satisfy a conflicting celebration no. 2 of particular cases aforesaid to partial with money. As such, no box of intrigue underneath Section 420 of a Penal Code can be construed to have been finished out.

CRR 1253 of 2018; CRR 1233 of 2018 and CRR 1470 of 2018 :

In all these 3 revisional applications a postulant has prayed for quashing of a move tentative in a Court of schooled Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Barrackpore, North 24-Parganas. It appears that during a pendency of a rest of a revisional cases mentioned above FIRs have been purebred on 15.5.2018 and 03.6.2018 respectively in CRR 1233 of 2018 and CRR 1470 of 2018 and a FIR in CRR 1253 of 2018 was purebred on 25.12.2017. So when an halt sequence of was upheld on 07.5.2018, a dual FIR as aforesaid have been purebred conflicting a indicted persons including a postulant with a identical claim of perpetrating crime of crime underneath Section 406 and 420 of Indian Penal Code in sequence to use a same as a attract to unleash a domestic fight conflicting a postulant by abusing a slight of rapist law. It is staid law that a rough exploration before to registration of FIR should be conducted where there is claim of crime and where there has been aberrant check in initiating assign over 3 months in stating a same nonetheless acceptable reason for a check of 6 years from a date of supposed occurrence.

Mr. Sudipta Moitra schooled warn for a postulant has pulpy in use a photocopy of Railway Budget 2012-2013 being a Speech of Dinesh Trivedi, Minister of Railways delivered on Mar 14, 2012 and serve forked out that on Mar 12, 2012 this postulant was not Railway Minister. Mr. Moitra forked out that a postulant Mukul Roy insincere a assign of a bureau of a Minister of Railways usually on 28th March, 2012 as per a Government of India, Cabinet Secretariat Notification antiquated 28th March, 2012 and with outcome from 22nd September, 2012, a postulant relinquished a assign of a bureau of a Minister of Railways. Having pronounced that, Mr. Moitra submitted that it was good in a believe of a open that a postulant was not holding a Ministry of a Railways as on a date of a occurrence alleged. Thus, he argued that a postulant has been secretly endangered in a array of rapist cases lodged in several places in a State of West Bengal after he severed his organisation with TMC in November, 2017 to embark conflicting him a misrepresentation debate to unleash a domestic fight and to wreak vengeance.

On seductiveness of a postulant preference in box of Kishan Singh (dead) by LRS. V. Gurpal Singh and others reported in (2010) 8 Supreme Court Cases 775 has been referred where a doubt endangered for care was presumably rapist record can be quashed by a High Court relying on a anticipating of Civil Court on an emanate endangered in rapist record in honour of a same theme matter and a courtesy finished in divide 21 and 22 of a Hon’ssble Apex Court has been brought to a notice of this Court that reads thus–

“21. Prompt and early stating of a occurrence by a adviser with all a transparent sum gives an declaration per law of a version. In case, there is some check in filing a FIR, a complainant contingency give reason for a same. Undoubtedly, check in camp a FIR does not make a complainant’s box extraordinary when such check is scrupulously explained. However, warn check in camp a censure is always fatal. [vide: Sahib Singh Vs. State of Haryana, AIR 1997 SC 3247].
22. In cases where there is a check in camp a FIR, a Court has to demeanour for a trustworthy reason for such delay. In deficiency of such an explanation, a check might be fatal. The reason for quashing such record might not be merely that a allegations were an after suspicion or had given a phony chronicle of events. In such cases a probity should delicately inspect a contribution before it for a reason that a undone contractor who unsuccessful to attain before a Civil Court might trigger rapist record usually to harass a other side with mala fide intentions or a apart belligerent of wreaking reprisal on a other party. Chagrined and undone litigants should not be accessible to give opening to their frustrations by low invoking a bureau of a rapist court. The probity record ought not to be accessible to trouble-maker into a arms of nuisance and persecution. In such a case, where an FIR is lodged clearly with a perspective to annoy a other celebration since of a private and personal hate and to derange a other celebration in prolonged and strenuous rapist proceedings, a probity might take a perspective that it amounts to an abuse of a slight of law in a contribution and resources of a case.”
On examination of a grave FIR in all sets of cases, it appears that a FIRs have been filed with lavish check of 6 years nonetheless any trustworthy reason for a same.

READ  Whether addressee not collecting envelope on intimation amounts refusal to accept notice?

To waken his justification Mr. Moitra relied on Neelu Chopra & Anr. v. Bharti reported in (2010) 1 C CrLR (SC) 256 Wherein it has been reason divide 9 thus–

“9. In sequence to board a scold compliant, small discuss of a sections and a denunciation of those sections is not be all and finish of a matter. What is compulsory to be brought to a notice of a probity is a sum of a crime committed by any and any indicted and a purpose played by any and any indicted in committing of that offence.”
In come-back Mr. Dutta has relied on a Lalita Kumari box (supra) contending that information relating to cognizable crime have to be purebred mandatorily by a military and there is no operation for a officer-in-charge of a military hire to establish a law or fabrication of a information perceived and invited my notice to a courtesy in paragraphs 86 and 93 of a cited visualisation in support of his acquiescence that are reproduced hereunder for essential bargain —

“86. Therefore, conducting an review into an crime after registration of FIR underneath Section 154of a Code is a “procedure determined by law” and, thus, is in consent with Article 21 of a Constitution. Accordingly, a right of a indicted underneath Article 21 of a Constitution is stable if a FIR is purebred initial and afterwards a review is conducted in suitability with a supplies of law.
93. The observant sought to be achieved by induction a beginning information as FIR is inter alia dual fold: one, that a rapist slight is set into suit and is good documented from a unequivocally start; and second, that a beginning information perceived in propinquity to a elect of a cognizable crime is accessible so that there can't be any decoration etc., later.”
True, officer-in-charge is avocation firm to register a FIR in box of a cognizable offence. Yet, a courtesy in divide 8 in box of Rajinder Singh Katoch v. Chandigarh Administration & Ors. reported in 2008 Cri.L.J. 356 is equally to be taken note of as per a faith placed by Mr. Moitra.

“8. Although a officer in assign of a military hire is legally firm to register a initial information news in terms of Section 154 of a Code of Criminal Procedure, if a allegations finished by them gives arise to an crime that can be investigated nonetheless receiving any accede from a Magistrate concerned; a same by itself, however, does not take divided a right of a efficient officer to make a rough enquiry, in a given case, in sequence to find out as to presumably a initial information sought to be lodged had any piece or not. In this case, a authorities had finished investigations into a matter. In fact, a Superintendent of Police himself has, pursuant to a directions released by a High Court, investigated into a matter and visited a mark in sequence to find out a law in a censure of a postulant from a neighbour. It was found that a censure finished by a appellant was fake and a same had been filed with an apart belligerent to take bootleg possession of a initial building of a house.”
Mr. Moitra refers to preference in Arulvelu & Anr. v. State & Anr. reported in 2010 Cri.L.J. 433 wherein in divide 16 it has been celebrated thus–

“16. The High Court celebrated that a FIR can't be an thesaurus to enclose all a sum of story of a case. This ensue of a High Court does not seem to be correct. The FIR should during slightest discuss a extended story of a assign and not mentioning of component and critical contribution might impact a credit of a FIR.”
Mr. Moitra also refers to a preference in State of UP by CBI SPE, Lucknow v.
R.K. Srivastava and another reported in 1989 Supreme Court Cases (Cr) 713 wherein it has been held, similar with a High Court preference that if a FIR does not enclose any transparent accusation, it amounts to an abuse of slight of a probity and, as such, is probable to be quashed.

In box of Doliben Kantilal Patel v. State of Gujarat & Anr. reported in AIR 2013 Supreme Court 2640 a Hon’ble Apex Court reason thus–

“Before registration of a FIR, an officer should be satisfied. In other words, if a contribution are such that need some exploration for a compensation about a charges or allegations finished in a FIR or he might have entertained a reasonable faith or doubt, afterwards he might make some inquiry. To put it clear, by trait of a countenance “reason to think a elect of an offence”, we are of a perspective that elect of cognizable offence, formed on a contribution mentioned has to be warn with a attending circumstances, if available. In other words, if there is a background/materials or information, it is a avocation of a officer to take note of a same and ensue according to law. It is serve finished transparent that if a contribution are such that need some exploration for a compensation about a charges or allegations finished in a FIR afterwards such a singular exploration is permissible.”
In finish Mr. Moitra once again refers to box of Lalita Kumari on a courtesy of a Hon’ble Supreme Court in divide 114 that reads thus–

“114. It is loyal that a ethereal change has to be confirmed between a seductiveness of a multitude and safeguarding a autocracy of an individual. As already discussed above, there are already sufficient safeguards supposing in a Code that duly strengthen a autocracy of an particular in box of registration of fake FIR. At a same time, Section 154 was drafted gripping in mind a seductiveness of a plant and a society. Therefore, we are of a reasoning perspective that imperative registration of FIRs underneath Section 154of a Code will not be in transgression of Article 21 of a Constitution as supposed by several counsel.”
And also relied on a preference in box of Bhajan Lal (supra) sketch a courtesy of a Court to paragraphs 31 and 32 to interpretation that “31. Be it remarkable that in Section 154(1) of a Code, a legislature in a common knowledge has delicately and carefully used a countenance “information” nonetheless subordinate a same as in Section 41(1) (a) or (g) of a Code wherein a expressions, “reasonable complaint” and “credible information” are used. Evidently, a non-qualification of a word “information” in Section 154(1) distinct in Section 41(1) (a) and (g) of a Code might be for a reason that a military officer should not exclude to record an information relating to a Commission of a cognizable crime and to register a box thereon on a belligerent that he is not confident with a discretion or credit of a information. In other words, ‘reasonableness’ or ‘credibility’ of a pronounced information is not a condition fashion for registration of a case. A comparison of a benefaction Section 154 with those of a progressing Codes will prove that a legislature had intentionally suspicion it fit to occupy usually a word “information” nonetheless subordinate a pronounced word. Section 139 of a Code of Criminal Procedure of 1861 (Act XXV of 1861) upheld by a Legislative Council of India review that ‘every censure or information’ elite to an officer in assign of a military hire shall be reduced into writing. The word ‘complaint’ that occurred in before dual Codes of 1861 and 1872 was deleted and in that place a word ‘information’ was used in a Codes of 1882 and 1955 that word is now used in Sections 154, 155, 157 and 190 (c) of a benefaction Code of 1973 (Act II of 1974). An altogether reading of all a Codes creates it transparent that a condition that is sine qua non for recording a First Information Report is that there contingency be an information and that information contingency divulge a cognizable offence.

32. It is, therefore, manifestly transparent that if any information disclosing a cognizable crime is laid before an officer in assign of a military hire gratifying a mandate of Section 154(1) of a Code, a pronounced military officer has no other choice solely to enter a piece thereof in a prescribed form, that is to say, to register a box on a basement of such information.”

I am entirely in agreement with a contentions modernized by schooled warn for a postulant on being swayed by a beliefs of law laid in a box of Priyanka Srivastava (supra) with anticipating that there is no reason for lavish check of 6 years in initiating record and a Magistrate chose to sequence induction FIRs in a above proceedings. The Learned Magistrate ought to sojourn observant with courtesy to a allegations finished and request his authorised mind to a same. Merely flitting instruction to register FIRs in a automatic demeanour nonetheless appreciating a contribution of a box reflects a erring ensue of a Learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Barrackpore inasmuch as in a benefaction set of cases, a Learned Magistrate has unsuccessful to interpretation or establish a law of a contribution and has mechanically upheld a sequence on a pre-printed sequence piece that appears to be cyclostyled. The applications underneath Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C. in a aforesaid cases are nonetheless upheld by an affidavits nonetheless such affidavits do not discuss a petitioner’s age that is one of a requirement of matter on promise in a form of an confirmation a pronounced petitions do not simulate filing of before applications underneath Sections 154(1) and 154(3) Cr.P.C. before filing applications underneath Section 156(3) of a Code of Criminal Procedure being a sine qua non for attracting movement to be taken before a Court of schooled Chief Judicial Magistrate or schooled Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate concerned.

In this context, it would be essential to imitate a obvious discipline given by a Hon’ble Supreme Court in a box of Priyanka Srivastava (supra) whereby a duplicate of a sequence upheld by a Hon’ble Apex Court was destined to be sent to a Hon’ble Chief Justices of all a High Courts by a Registry for dissemination of a same among a schooled Sessions Judges who, in turn, were destined to disseminate among a schooled Magistrates so that they can sojourn some-more observant and committed while sportive a energy underneath Section 156(3) Cr.P.C.

Having left by a sequence sheets in all a cases underneath reference, where instruction has been given to a Officer-in-charge for review by invoking energy underneath Section 156(3) of a Code, a Learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Barrackpore does not seem to have practical his authorised mind and released instruction for military review by registration of FIRs conflicting a postulant in a slight and automatic manner.

Therefore, we ensue that Learned Registrar General shall take evident stairs for distribution of suitable discipline to all a Chief Judicial Magistrates, Chief Metropolitan Magistrates, Additional Chief Judicial Magistrates, Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrates, Judicial Magistrates by a District Sessions Judges and Metropolitan Magistrates, Calcutta of all a Districts of a State of West Bengal, that discipline are laid down for focus of authorised mind by a Learned Judicial Magistrate while invoking energy underneath Section 156(3) of a Code, as under–

1. The schooled Magistrate would be good suggested to establish a law and a sincerity of a allegations, courtesy being had to a inlet of allegations of a case.
2. There has to be before applications underneath Section 154(1) and 154(3) while filing a petition underneath Section 156(3) of a Code of Criminal Procedure.
3. Both a aspects should be clearly spelt out in a focus and compulsory papers to that outcome shall be filed that are a sine qua non for focus underneath Section 156(3) of a Code.
4. An focus underneath Section 156(3) of a Code should be upheld by an confirmation so that a chairman creation a focus should be unwavering and also attempt to see that no fake confirmation is made.
5. A series of cases regarding to mercantile sphere, matrimonial dispute/family disputes, blurb offences, medical loosening cases, crime cases and a cases where there is aberrant delay/laches in initiating rapist prosecution, as are illustrated in Lalita Kumari are being filed.
6. Learned Magistrate would also be wakeful of a aberrant check in camp of a FIR in initiating rapist prosecution.
In a context above, we am of a warn opinion that nonetheless a First Information Report need not be an catalogue of facts, nonetheless during a same time it contingency divulge a simple contribution forming a cognizable offences alleged. Therefore, a Learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Barrackpore, North 24 Parganas while flitting a impugned sequence antiquated 9.3.2018 underneath territory 156(3) of a Code ought to have practical his authorised mind to cruise presumably any box requiring an review underneath Sections 406 and 420 IPC had been finished out.

Giving an concerned care to a contribution and resources of a case, temperament in mind a opposition contentions as modernized by a schooled warn of a parties and requesting a beliefs of law as discussed in a foregoing paragraphs, this Court comes to a finish that a postulant has been maliciously prosecuted with a fake claim of a cognizable crime during this apart prove of time, for a FIRs being lodged belatedly after 6 years, might be to wreak reprisal by foisting fake cases after cases conflicting him.

Ergo, a record being G.R. Case No. 1331 of 2018; G.R. Case No. 1332 of 2018; G.R. Case No. 1333 of 2018; G.R. Case No. 1334 of 2018; G.R. Case No. 1335 of 2018; G.R. Case No. 1336 of 2018; G.R. Case No. 1337 of 2018; G.R. Case No. 1338 of 2018 and G.R. Case No. 1370 of 2018 opening out of Bizpore Police Station Case No. 161 of 2018; No. 162 of 2018; No. 163 of 2018; No. 164 of 2018; No. 165 of 2018; No. 166 of 2018; No. 167 of 2018; No. 168 of 2018 and No. 169 of 2018 all antiquated 12.3.2018 underneath Sections 420/406 of a Indian Penal Code respectively and instruction antiquated 09.3.2018 upheld by a schooled Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Barrackpore, North 24- Parganas in M.P. Case No. 456 of 2018; No. 457 of 2018; No. 458 of 2018; No. 459 of 2018; No. 461 of 2018; No. 460 of 2018; No. 462 of 2018; No. 470 of 2018 and No. 469 of 2018 respectively tentative in a Court of schooled Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Barrackpore, North 24 Parganas thereby directing a Inspector-in-charge, Bizpore Police Station to provide a applications underneath Section 156(3) of a Code of Criminal Procedure as a FIRs and start review and record being G.R. Case No. 8471 of 2017 opening out of Jagatdal Police Station Case No. 1561 of 2017 antiquated 25.12.2017 underneath Sections 420/406 of a Indian Penal Code; G.R. Case No. 2643 of 2018 opening out of Naihati Police Station Case No. 335 of 2018 antiquated 15.5.2018 underneath Sections 420/406/468/471/34 of a Indian Penal Code and G.R. Case No. 3204 of 2018 opening out of Noapara Police Station Case No. 192 of 2018 antiquated 03.6.2018 underneath Sections 420/406/467/468/471/472/120B/34 of a Indian Penal Code tentative before a schooled Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Barrackpore, North 24 Parganas are hereby quashed qua a petitioner, however, a review might ensue as conflicting a rest of a named indicted persons nonetheless obviously, a lavish check in lodgment of a FIRs have to be eventually noticed by indirect and might be a indecisive emanate for decision.

Accordingly, CRR 730 of 2018 with CRR 731 of 2018 with CRR 732 of 2018 with CRR 733 of 2018 with CRR 734 of 2018 with CRR 735 of 2018 with CRR 736 of 2018 with CRR 737 of 2018 with CRR 738 of 2018 with CRR 1253 of 2018 with CRAN 1428 of 2018 with CRR 1233 of 2018 with CRR 1470 of 2018 are hereby authorised and expected of and thus, CRAN 1428 of 2018 opening out of CRR 1253 of 2018 stands expected of.

LCRs be sent to a Court of schooled Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Barrackpore along with a duplicate of this visualisation forthwith.

Urgent approved photocopy of this Judgment, if practical for, be granted to a parties on correspondence with all claim formalities.

(SHIVAKANT PRASAD, J.) Later__ 20.7.2018 After a visualisation is delivered, a schooled warn Mr. Saswata Gopal Mukherjee, Public Prosecutor, High Court, Calcutta submits for stay of operation of a order. The conflict has been lifted on seductiveness of a petitioner. Having courtesy to a commentary finished in a physique of a judgment, a request for a stay of operation of a visualisation is incited down and not continenced to.

(SHIVAKANT PRASAD, J.)

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Copyright © 2021 MyNation KnowledgeBase
×

Free Legal Help, Just WhatsApp Away

MyNation HELP line

We are Not Lawyers, though No Lawyer will give we Advice like We do

Please review Group Rules – CLICK HERE, If You determine afterwards Please Register CLICK HERE and after registration  JOIN WELCOME GROUP HERE

We hoop Women Centric inequitable laws like False Section 498A IPC, Domestic Violence(DV ACT), Divorce, Maintenance, Alimony, Child Custody, HMA 24, 125 CrPc, 307, 312, 313, 323, 354, 376, 377, 406, 420, 497, 506, 509; TEP, RTI and many more…

READ  498A quash with 482 CrPc - Cannt Backtrack from settled agreement
MyNation FoundationMyNation FoundationMyNation Foundation