Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)
Bikash Adhikary vs State Of West Bengal And Another on 2 August, 2016
Author: R.K. Bag
Bench: R.K. Bag
1 S/L.73. C.R.R. No.3827 of 2015 August 2, 2016 With Bpg. CRAN 1035 of 2016 In the matter of : Bikash Adhikary.
...petitioner.
Versus State of West Bengal and another.
...opposite parties.
Mr. Sudip Banerjee.
...for the petitioner.
Ms. Anusua Sinha.
...for the State.
The petitioner has prayed for quashing of the criminal proceeding of G.R. no.2633 of 2015 arising out of Siliguri Woman Police Station Case no.71 dated July 29, 2015 under Sections 363/366A/376(2)(h) of the Indian Penal Code pending before the court of learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Siliguri.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that one Usha Adhikary, daughter of the opposite party no.2 filed a written complaint before the Officer-in- Charge of Bhaktinagar Police Station on the basis of which Bhaktinagar Police Station Case no.1034 of 2015 dated July 27, 2015 under Sections 363/376 of the Indian Penal Code was registered. He further submits that the opposite party no.2 has filed another written complaint before the Officer-in-Charge of Siliguri Woman Police Station on the basis of which Siliguri Woman Police Station Case no.71 of 2015 dated July 29, 2015 under Sections 363/3661/376(2)(h) of the Indian Penal Code was registered. According to learned counsel for the petitioner, the second criminal case is started by the father of the victim for the same offence for which the victim has already started a criminal case against the petitioner. Learned counsel also submits that the second criminal case is not maintainable in law and continuation of investigation in connection with the second criminal case is an abuse of the process of the court.
Ms. Anusua Sinha, learned counsel for the opposite party/State has 2 referred to the materials available in the case diary of both the cases and submitted that the current status of investigation of both the cases is not available. She has fairly submitted that the second criminal case is started for the same offence for which the first criminal case was already initiated by the victim.
None appears on behalf of the opposite party no.2 in spite of service of notice and copy of the revisional application as reflected from the affidavit-of- service filed on behalf of the petitioner.
On perusal of the written complaint treated as FIR of Bhaktinagar Police Station Case no.1034 of 2015, I find that on July 24, 2015 the victim Usha Adhikary was allured by the present petitioner and they got married in the Kali temple and spent a night in the hotel and thereafter the petitioner took her near the house of his elder sister and deserted her without giving further intimation. Similarly, on perusal of the written complaint filed by the father of the victim before the Officer-in-Charge of Siliguri Woman Police Station for registration of Siliguri Woman Police Station Case no.71 of 2015, I find that the father of the victim has repeated the same allegation against the petitioner in the said written complaint treated as FIR. The father of the victim did not disclose about the initiation of the criminal proceeding against the petitioner by her daughter for the same offence for which the second criminal case is registered. Since the second criminal case for the offence for which the first criminal case has already been initiated is not maintainable in law, I am inclined to invoke my inherent power under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for quashing of the second criminal proceeding against the petitioner. However, the Investigating Officer of the first criminal case is at liberty to consider the materials collected by the Investigating Officer of the second criminal case and use the same at the time of submitting police report under Section 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure in connection with the first criminal case and if the police report in final form is already submitted in connection with the first criminal case, the Investigating Officer of the first criminal case is at liberty to use the materials collected during investigation of the second criminal case for filing supplementary charge-sheet under Section 173(8) of the Code of Criminal Procedure in connection with first criminal case.
3In view of my above findings, criminal proceeding being G.R. no.2633 of 2015 arising out of Siliguri Woman Police Station Case no.71 of 2015 dated July 29, 2015 pending before the court of learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Siliguri is quashed. The Investigating Officer of Bhaktinagar Police Station Case no.1034 of 2015 is at liberty to use the materials collected by the Investigating Officer of Siliguri Woman Police Station Case no.71 of 2015 either at the time of filing the police report in final form in connection with Bhaktinagar Police Station Case no.1034 of 2015 or by way of submitting supplementary charge-sheet under Section 173(8) of the Code of Criminal Procedure in connection with the said Bhaktinagar Police Station Case no.1034 of 2015 if the police report in final form has already been submitted in the said criminal case.
With the above direction, revisional application and CRAN are disposed of.
Let a copy of this order be sent down to Officer-in-Charge of Bhaktinagar Police Station in the district of Jalpaiguri and another copy of the order be sent down to learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Siliguri for favour of information and necessary action.
Urgent photostat certified copies of this order, if applied for, be given to the learned counsel for the parties upon compliance of all necessary formalities.
(R.K. Bag, J.)