Form No.J(1)
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
Criminal Revisional Jurisdiction
Appellate Side
Present:
The Hon’ble Justice Madhumati Mitra
C.R.R. 1445 of 2018
With
CRAN 1099 of 2019
With
CRAN 457 of 2019
Dr. Saibal Ganguly
Vs.
The State of West Bengal Ors.
Advocate for the Petitioner : Mr. Sudipto Moitra…Sr.Adv.
Mr. Ayan Bhattacharyya…Adv.
Mr. Pramit Bag…Adv.
Mr. Apalak Basu…Adv.
Mr. Rajesh Kshetry…Adv.
Ms. Sinka Bose…Adv.
Ms. Dipika Sarkar…Adv.
Advocate for the : Mr. Y.J.Dastoor…Sr. Adv.
Opposite Party No.2 Mr.Krishnendu Bhattacharyya…Adv
Ms. Somsuvra Mukherjee…Adv
Advocate for the State : Mr. Rana Mukherjee…Ld.Addl. P.P.
Mr. Santanu Chatterjee…Adv.
Judgment on : 28.06.2019
Madhumati Mitra, J. :
This is an application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure
1973 filed by the petitioner praying quashing of the proceedings of CRR No.4792
of 2015 arising out of Lake Police Station Case No.399 dated 24th October, 2015
under Sections 341/Section323/Section448/Section509/Section114 of the Indian Penal Code pending before
the Court of the Learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Alipore, South 24 Parganas.
In a nutshell the facts of the case are that on 24.10.2015 the de facto
complainant i.e opposite party no.2 lodged a written complaint before the Lake
Police Station against the present petitioner who is the brother of the husband of
the de facto complainant. It was alleged in the said complaint that in the
morning of the date of alleged incident the de facto complainant went in the
residence of her husband to pick her daughter as she was denied access to her
daughter. The de facto complainant picked up her daughter from there and
came back home. On that date at 9:00 p.m. the husband of the de facto
complainant and petitioner came to her residence and created a scene. Petitioner
raised hand on the complainant in full public view in presence of other residents.
It was alleged in the said written complaint that her brother- in- law i.e the
present petitioner had been residing in U.K since March, 2005 and he was a
trespasser. It was the further allegation of the complainant that the petitioner
tried to strangle her and abused her.
On the basis of the said FIR, Lake Police Station Case No.399 dated
24.10.15, was started against the FIR named accused persons.
After completion of investigation charge-sheet was submitted against
the present petitioner for commission of alleged offences under Sections
341/Section323/Section354/Section448/Section509 of the Indian Penal Code. Petitioner has approached for
quashing of the criminal proceeding pending against him under Section 482 of
the Code of Criminal Procedure.
It is the settled principle of law that in order to exercise the inherent power
under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure the contents of the First
Information Report shall have to be examined and the High Court at that stage
has no jurisdiction to go into the merit or examine its correctness. Whatever
appears on the face of the First Information Report shall be taken into
consideration to see whether the allegations contained in the FIR or complaint or
the statements of the witnesses in support of the same taken of their face value
make out any offence as alleged against the petitioner/accused.
Learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner has vigorously argued that
the petitioner is a reputed doctor and resides in United Kingdom with his family
and de facto complainant is the sister in law of the petitioner i.e the wife of his
brother. He has contended that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the
instant criminal proceeding and there was no ground whatsoever for implicating
him in the alleged crime. Learned Advocate for the petitioner has submitted that
there was/is long standing dispute in between his brother and his wife i.e de
facto complainant and the FIR was lodged against the petitioner and his brother
i.e. husband of the de facto complainant, but charge-sheet was submitted
against the petitioner only.
While making his submission in favour of quashing the criminal
proceeding pending against the present petitioner, Learned Advocate appearing
for the petitioner has given emphasis on the ground that the petitioner has been
falsely and maliciously implicated in the criminal proceeding pending against
him. In support of his contention he has invited attention of the Court to First
Information Report lodged by the de facto complainant and submitted that at the
1st instance the de facto complainant simply stated in her FIR that her husband
and her brother in law came to her house at about 9:00 p.m. On the date of
alleged incident they created a scene there and the petitioner raised his hand on
her. Learned Advocate for the petitioner has further contended that in her
second FIR the de facto complainant exaggerated the alleged incident by stating
that the petitioner caused bodily harm to her and tried to strangle her.
According to his contention such exaggeration was made in the 2nd FIR with an
ulterior motive to harass him as the de facto complainant made prayer for
impounding his passport. Learned Counsel for the petitioner has also drawn the
attention of the Court to Annexure-P ‘9’ at Page 48 of the petition under Section
482 Cr.P.C. and submitted that the de facto complainant made a complaint
against the petitioner to the General Medical Council, 3 Hardman Street,
Manchester M3 3AW and that complaint was examined by the case examiners
and they decided to conclude the case with no further action. He has vigorously
argued that the criminal proceedings initiated by the de facto complainant
against the petitioner with mala fide intention due to personal grudge as reflected
from her conduct. It has also been contended on behalf of the petitioner that the
ingredients of the alleged offences have not been made out either in FIR or in the
charge-sheet. According to his contention that the continuance of the criminal
proceeding against the petitioner would be an abuse of the process of the Court.
Learned Advocate for the petitioner has placed his reliance on the decisions
reported in (2017) 13 Supreme Court Cases 369 (Vineet Kumar and Others Versus
State of Uttar Pradesh and Another); (2009) 10 Supreme Court Cases 184 (Neelu
Chopra and Another Versus Bharti), 1988 Supreme Court Cases (Cri) 234
(Madhavrao Jiwajirao Scindia and Others Vs. Sambhajirao Chandrojirao Angre
and Others); 2008 Cri.L.J. 431/B. Suresh Yadav Vs. Sharifa Bee and Anr.);
(2007)14 Supreme Court Cases 776 (All Cargo Movers (India) Private Limited and
Others Vs. Dhanesh Badarmal Jain and Anr.); (2008)13 Supreme Court Cases 678
(Suryalakshmi Cotton Mills Limited Vs. Rajvir Industries Limited and Others);
1992 Supp(1) Supreme Court Cases 335 (State of Haryana and Other Versus
Bhajan Lal and Others); (1960)3 SCR 388; AIR 1960 SC 866 (R.P.Kapur Versus
State of Punjab); (1977)2 Supreme Court Cases 699 (State of Karnataka Vs.
L.Muniswamy and Others); (2017) 13 Supreme Court Cases 369 (Vineet Kumar
and Others Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and Another);
The inherent power under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure
has to be exercised with caution and such power can be exercised only for the
purposes specifically mentioned in the Section. These three purposes are:-
1.
To give effect to an order in the code;
2. Prevent abuse of the process of the Court and
3. To otherwise secure the ends of justice.
In this connection the Learned Additional Public Prosecution has drawn
the attention of the Court to the relevant portions of the case diary and
contended that the averments of the FIR specifically disclosed the commission of
congnizable offences as well as the involvement of the petitioner in the alleged
crime. He has contended that after investigation charge-sheet was submitted
against the accused person. He has invited the attention of the Court to the FIR
and contended that the de facto complainant lodged only one FIR regarding
alleged incident and the submission of the Learned Counsel for the petitioner
that the de facto complainant subsequently filed another FIR making specific
exaggerated allegations against the petitioner is not correct. According to his
contention the materials collected during investigation support the existence of
prima facie case against the petitioner. He has lastly contended that the prayer
of the petitioner to quash the proceeding is liable to be dismissed.
Learned Counsel appearing for the opposite party no.2 i.e. the de facto
complainant has invited the attention of the Court to the FIR and submitted that
the allegations contained in the FIR clearly make out a prima facie case. He has
further contended that the materials collected by the Investigating Officer during
investigation also support the allegation in the FIR.
During the course of hearing, the Learned Advocate for the opposite party
no.2, de facto complainant has submitted that from the FIR, it appears that the
petitioner trespassed into the house of the father of the de facto complainant and
assaulted the victim lady, hurled abusive language to her in presence of her
neighbour, caretaker, and security guard of the building. He has further
contended that the statements of the witnesses who had seen the alleged incident
were recorded during investigation under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal
Procedure and the statement of the victim girl was also recorded under Section
164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure which corroborate the alleged incident as
described in the FIR. Learned Advocate for the opposite party no.2 has laid
stress for dismissal of the application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal
Procedure.
In support of his contention, the Learned Advocate for the opposite party
no.2 has placed his reliance on the decisions in Minakshi Bala Vs. Sudhir Kumar
reported in 1994 LawSuit(SC) 505, State of Orissa Vs. Debendra Nath Padhi 2004
LawSuit(SC) 1408, R.P.Kapur Vs. State of Punjab reported in 1960 LawSuit(SC) 86,
Renu Kumari Vs. Sanjay Kumar reported in 2008 LawSuit(SC) 191; Rupan Deol
Bajaj Vs. Kanwar Pal Singh Gill reported in 1995 LawSuit(SC) 958.
On 11.06.2019, the petitioner has filed certain documents by way of
supplementary affidavit which had not been annexed to the application under
Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for invoking inherent power of the
Court.
Copy of the case diary has been produced by the Learned Additional Public
Prosecutor.
All the Learned Counsel appearing for the parties took much pain and
advanced their eloquent arguments with the help of a series of decisions of our
Apex Court and different High Courts. In addition to their oral arguments
Learned Counsel filed written submissions. I after carefully and assiduously
examining the submission and counter submission advanced by all the Learned
Counsel for the parties both on the legal and factual aspects and after
scrupulously scanning the materials placed on record and examining the written
arguments submitted by the parties, would like to deal with those contentions
seriatim.
It is well settled that inherent power under Section 482 of the Code of
Criminal Procedure has been vested with the High Court with object of
advancement of justice.
Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the proceedings pending
against the petitioner before the Learned Magistrate has been initiated
maliciously with ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance due to personal grudge.
In support of his contention he has drawn the attention of the Court to the
supplementary affidavit and submitted that the de facto complainant initiated
several proceedings against her husband and in laws including the present
petitioner under the provisions of the protection of Women from SectionDomestic
Violence Act, 2005, under Section 7(8) and 25 of the Guardian and SectionWards Act
etc. and the de facto complainant narrated the alleged incident in different forum
in different ways and thus created a doubt regarding the genuineness of
commission of the alleged offences. He has further contended that the
documents which have been filed by the petitioner by way of supplementary
affidavit are of unimpeachable character and Court can take the documents into
consideration. He has further contended that the de facto complainant made
different versions at different forum as reflected from the documents as filed by
the petitioner by way of supplementary affidavit and from those documents it can
be said without any hesitation that the criminal proceeding has been initiated
only to cause harassment to the accused and continuance thereof would amount
to abuse of process of Court.
The parameters of jurisdiction of the High Court in exercising it jurisdiction
under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is now well settled.
In this connection, I would like to refer to a decision of the Hon’ble
Supreme Court reported in State of Haryana and Others Vs. Ch. Bhajan Lal
and Others reported in AIR 1992 SC 604.
In paragraph 108 of the said judgment the Hon’ble Supreme Court was
pleased to give illustrations wherein the extraordinary power under SectionArticle 226 or
the inherent power under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure can be
exercised by the High Court to prevent abuse of the process of any Court or
otherwise to secure the ends of justice. The illustrations are as follows:-
” 1) Where the allegations made in the First Information Report
or the complaint, even if they are taken at their face value and
accepted in their entirety do not prima facie constitute any
offence or make out a case against the accused;
2) Where the allegations in the First Information Report and
other materials, if any, accompanying the F.I.R do not disclose a
congnizable offence, justifying an investigation by police officers
under Section 156(1) of the Code except under an order of a
Magistrate within the purview of Section of 155(2) of the Code;
3) Where the uncontroverted allegations made in the FIR or
complaint and the evidence collected in support of the same do
not disclose the commission of any offence and make out a case
against the accused;
4) Where the allegations in the F.I.R. do not constitute a
cognizable offence but constitute only a non-cognizable offence,
no investigation is permitted by a police officer without an order
of a Magistrate as contemplated under Section. 155(2) of the
Code;
5) Where the allegations made in the FIR or complaint are so
absurd and inherently improbable on the basis of which no
prudent person can ever reach a just conclusion that there is
sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused;
6) Where there is express legal bar engrafted in any of the
provisions of the Code or the concerned Act (under which a
criminal proceeding is instituted) to the institution and
continuance of the proceedings and / or where there is a specific
provision in the Code or the concerned Act, providing efficacious
redress, for the grievance of the aggrieved party;
7) Where a criminal proceeding is manifestly accompanied with
mala fide and / or where the proceeding is maliciously instituted
with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance on the accused
and with a view to spite him due to personal and private
grudge.”
I would also like to refer another decision in R.P.Kapur Vs. State of
Punjab reported in AIR 1960 SC 866. Our Apex Court summarized some
categories of cases where inherent power can and should be exercised to quash
the proceedings.
i. Where it manifestly appears that there is a legal bar against the
institution or continuance e.g. want of sanction;
ii. Where the allegations in the first information report or complaint taken at
its face value and accepted in their entirely do not constitute the offence
alleged;
iii. Where the allegations constitute an offence, but there is no legal
evidence adduced or the evidence adduced clearly or manifestly fails to
prove the charge.
Coming to the case at hand, the present petitioner who is the accused of
the criminal proceeding is admittedly the brother of the husband of de facto
complainant. De facto complainant lodged the FIR against the present petitioner
and her husband. After completion of investigation police submitted charge
sheet against the petitioner only for commission of the alleged offences
punishable under Sections 341/323/354/509/448 I.P.C.
It is the settled principle of law that in order to exercise the inherent power
under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure the contents of the First
Information Report shall have to be examined and the High Court at that stage
has no jurisdiction to go into the merit or examine its correctness. Whatever
appears on the First Information Report shall be taken into consideration to see
whether the allegations contained in the FIR or complaint or the statements of
the witnesses in support of the same of their face value make out any offence as
alleged against the petitioner/accused. It appears that during investigation the
statements of the witnesses have been recorded under Section 161 of Cr.P.C. and
the de facto complainant has made statement before the Learned Magistrate
under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure in connection with the
alleged incident.
First Information report, the charge-sheet and the materials collected
during investigation clearly indicate the existence of prima facie case for
proceedings for commission alleged offences against the present petitioner.
Learned Advocate for the petitioner has contended that there was no
specific allegation against the petitioner in the 1st FIR and the de facto
complainant made specific allegation against the petitioner in subsequent FIR
which is an afterthought.
In the instant case the de facto complainant lodged only one FIR consists of
two pages. Perhaps this contention has been made by Learned Counsel
appearing for the petitioner on a mistaken basis.
Learned Advocate for the petitioner has strongly contended that the
petitioner has been maliciously implicated in the criminal proceeding. In support
of his contention he has placed reliance on the statements of the de facto
complainant in connection with several proceedings pending before different Civil
and Criminal Court and the complaint made by the de facto complainant before
the General Medical Council, Manchester, United Kingdom. It is the specific
contention of the petitioner that after conducting an investigation into the
petitioner’s fitness to practice, the case examiners decided to close the case with
no action.
Investigation of the medical Council into the fitness to practice by a
medical practitioner is quite different from criminal investigation and function of
criminal Court. As such no inference can be drawn on the basis of the decision
of said examiners. Moreover, quashing of prosecution by the High Court by
appreciating evidence is not proper when the allegations made in the First
Information Report and the materials referred to in the charge sheet prima facie
make out alleged offences. The Court while considering the prayer for quashing
should not assume the jurisdiction of Trial Court and to consider the plea of
innocence of the accused. While considering the prayer for quashing the High
Court should not delving deep into the merit of the case or adjudicate upon a
disputed question of fact. Considering all aspects, I am of the view that the
allegations as made in the FIR prima facie constitute the offence alleged.
Subsequent submission of charge sheet against the petitioner and the materials
collected during investigation make out prima facie case for proceeding against
him.
The instant case does not come with the guidelines as laid down by the
Hon’ble Supreme Court in State of Haryana and Others Vs. Ch. Bhajan Lal
and Others reported in AIR 1992 SC 604 and in other subsequent cases
regarding exercise of inherent power under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal
Procedure.
Moreover, from the materials placed on record, it cannot be said that the
continuance of the criminal proceedings pending against the petitioner would
amount to an abuse of the process of the Court. In my opinion, it is not a fit case
to exercise the discretion under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
As a result the application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure
i.e.1445 of 2018 is dismissed.
Interim order, if any stands vacated.
Re: C.R.A.N.1099 of 2019 and C.R.A.N.457 of 2019.
In view of the judgment passed in C.R.R.1455 of 2018 both the
applications become infructuous and stand dismissed.
Copy of case diary produced by the State be handed over to the Learned
Advocate for the State immediately.
Urgent Photostat certified copy of this judgment be supplied to the parties,
if applied for, upon compliance with all formalities.
(Madhumati Mitra, J.)