Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)
Pranab Kumar Halder vs Unknown on 12 December, 2013
Author: Kanchan Chakraborty
Bench: Kanchan Chakraborty
12.12.13 CRR 2728 of 2013
In the matter of : Pranab Kumar Halder
... Petitioner
Mr. Jayanta Narayan Chatterjee ... For the Petitioner
Mr. Amartya Ghosh ... For the State
This application under Section 482 of the Code of
Criminal Procedure has been taken out by Pranab Kumar
Halder, an accused in Bishnupur Police Station Case No. 597
of 2010 dated 4.12. 2010 under Sections 420/376/493 of the
Indian Penal Code, praying for quashing of the proceedings
on the ground that on the self-same cause of action another
case being Usthi Police Station Case No. 286 dated
30.10.2010 under Sections 420/376/493 of the Indian Penal
Code has been filed by the de facto complainant, Smt.
Chandana Sarder against the petitioner, Pranab Kumar
Halder pending in the court of learned Magistrate at Diamond
Harbour.
Smt. Chandana Sardar is a widow and has a daughter.
The petitioner accused, Pranab Kumar Halder, a local man
picked up relation with her and they started cohabiting.
Pranab Kumar Halder has helped the lady from time to time
financially. The lady, Chandana Sardar, provided him a loan
of Rs.1,98,000/-. Pranab Kumar Halder, the petitioner, being
pressurised by Chandana Sardar, has prepared some papers
of their marriage where he obtained some signatures of
Chandana Sardar for the purpose of registration of their
marriage. Chandana had every trust and belief in Pranab
Kumar Halder that he would marry her by way of registration.
Thereafter, she presurrised him to marry socially. At that
point of time Pranab disclosed that he has not married her by
way of registration and it was a fake marriage having no legal
force. Chandana thought that she was deceived, cheated and
also raped. So, she lodged one F.I.R. with Usthi Police Station
on 30.10.2010 which was registered as Usthi Police Station
Case No.286 of 2010 dated 30.10.2010 under Sections
493/376/420of Indian Penal Code. The investigation into the case is going on.
Thereafter on 04.12.2010 Chandana Sardar again lodged a complaint in the court of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate at Alipore against the present petitioner, Pranab Kumar Halder under Sections 420/376/493 of Indian Penal Code on the self-same incident and prayed for referring the matter to Bishnupur Police Station for investigation under Section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Accordingly, Bishnupur Police Station Case No. 597 dated 04.12.2010 under Sections 420/376/493 of Indian Penal Code was started against Pranab Kumar Halder and in that case Pranab Kumar Halder has come up with an application before this Court praying for quashing of the criminal action against him by Chandana Sardar on the self-same cause of action.
I have heard Mr. Chatterjee, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Ghosh, learned counsel appearing for the State.
Mr. Chatterjee contended that on perusal of the F. I. R. in Usthi Police Station Case and Bishnupur Police Station case would clearly show that Chandana Sardar lodged cases against the petitioner twice on self-same incident and cause of action and both the cases are taken up for investigation by the police. It is not that the subsequent, one that is the present case, was on a complaint case where learned Magistrate had power to tag this case with the earlier one.
Mr. Ghosh, learned counsel for the State, fairly concedes to the submission of Mr. Chatterjee, He produces the case diary of Bishnupur Police Station Case No. 597 dated 04.12.2013 that is the subsequent case initiated by Chandana Sardar against the petitioner, on the self-same cause of action. He has drawn attention of the Court to Section 164 statements of Chandana Sardar and submitted that Chandana Sardar suppressed the easrlier F. I. R. lodged by her in which the investigation is still continuing.
A man cannot be vexed twice for the same offence. The de facto complainant, Chandana Sardar, initiated a case against the petitioner for committing offence under Sections 420/376/498 of Indian Penal Code. She cannot initiate another criminal case against him on the self-same offences and on the self-same cause of action. Law does not permit this. This is absolutely abuse of process of Court and it should not be allowed to be continuing. It is trite law that vexatious proceedings should not be allowed to be continuing and the same should be quashed.
In the facts and circumstances stated above, I think that second criminal action i.e. Bishnupur Police Station Case No. 597 dated 04.12.2010 against Pranab Kumr Halder initiated by Chandana Sardar should not be continued and, as such, stands quashed. However, Usthi Police Station Case No. 286 of 2010 dated 30.10.2010 under Sections 420/ 376/ 493 of Indian Penal Code should continue.
The revisional application is allowed and disposed of. Criminal Section is directed to send a copy of this order to the learned trial court forthwith, for information and necessary action.
Case diaries be returned.
Urgent certified photocopy of this order, if applied for, be supplied as expeditiously as possible.
(Kanchan Chakraborty, J.)