Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)
Lalita Kumari Vs. State Of U.P. Reported ... vs Unknown on 30 October, 2024
Item No.8 30.10.2024
GB/PS Ct. No. 3 (Vacation Bench) C.R.R. 4685 of 2024 In Re : Amit Patra ...... petitioner Mr. Rajdeep Mazumder, Mr. Moyukh Mukherjee, Mr. Pritam Roy, Ms. Shyanti Poddar, Mr. Soewel Bhattacjarjee, Ms. Sagnika Banerjee ... for the Petitioner.
The opposite party no.2/de facto complainant had filed a complaint at the Nandigram police station in the capacity of CMOH, Nandigram Health District dated 31.01.2023, inter alia, stating that the petitioner being a Block Account Manager, Reapara Rural Hospital, Nandigram-II, in the course of a departmental enquiry was detected to be negligent in his duties, indulging other financial irregularities. The opposite party no.2 had joined the District on 12th August, 2022 and conducted the inquiry on an information received from Dr. Suprio Mitra, Deputy CMOH - III, Nandigram Health District and declared the petitioner to be guilty, who had confessed his guilt during the process of enquiry.
Based on the complaint, Nandigram Police Station Case No.165 of 2023 dated 31.01.2023 was filed.
The learned advocate representing the petitioner submitted the FIR registered by the concerned police station was vague, without noting the date, time of the commission of the offence. Moreover, the complaint filed by the opposite party no.2 did not specify the nature of negligence 2 and financial irregularities. The confession on the part of the petitioner no.1 admitting his guilt was disputed.
The learned advocate representing the petitioner further submitted that a charge under Section 420 along with Section 406 of the Indian Penal Code cannot be framed in view of the observation of the Hon'ble Supreme Court and the other High Courts. Moreover, the notice under Section 41A of the Criminal Procedure Code complying the notification of the court has not been served upon the petitioner. Moreover, the observations of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Lalita Kumari vs. State of U.P. reported in (2014) 2 SCC 1 with regard to the registration of FIR was not complied with. The charge- sheet in the instant case has not yet been submitted after a lapse of one year ten months. The veracity of the complaint as well as the contentions raised by the learned advocate representing the petitioner can be assessed on the basis of the case diary and submission on the part of the State.
The learned advocate for the petitioner is to serve a notice upon the State to be present before the Court on the next date of hearing along with the case diary. The proceedings of G.R. Case No.306 of 2023 be stayed until further orders.
Let the matter be fixed on 2nd December, 2024 before the regular Bench.
Parties to act on the basis of the server copy of this order.
(Ananya Bandyopadhyay, J.)