Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)
Priyangu Pandey vs The State Of West Bengal & Ors on 3 April, 2025
Author: Tirthankar Ghosh
Bench: Tirthankar Ghosh
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
CONSTITUTIONAL WRIT JURISDICTION
APPELLATE SIDE
PRESENT:
THE HON'BLE JUSTICE TIRTHANKAR GHOSH
W.P.A. No. 31014 OF 2024
Priyangu Pandey
versus
The State of West Bengal & Ors.
For the Petitioners : Mr. Rajdeep Majumder, Sr. Adv.,
Mr. Moyukh Mukherjee, Adv.,
Mr. Abhijit Singh, Adv.,
Ms. Sagnika Banerjee, Adv.
For the State-Respondents : Mr. Kalyan Bandopadhyay, Sr. Adv.,
Mr. Jayanta Samanta, Adv.,
Mr. Biplab Guha, Adv.,
Mr. Rahul Singh, Adv.,
Mrs. Reshma Chatterjee, Adv.
Heard On : 18.03.2025
Judgement On : 03.04.2025
Tirthankar Ghosh, J. :
The present writ petition has been preferred challenging the continuance of Bhatpara Police Station Case No. 708/24 dated 21.12.2024 which was registered for investigation under Sections 126(2)/ 2 121(1)/132/115(2)/118(1)/351(2)/189(2)/221 of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita 2023, against the petitioner along with others.
The allegations made in the written information submitted by one Asrajul Islam, Sub-Inspector of Police attached to Detective Department, Barrackpore Police Commissionerate were to the effect that they had been to the security office of the building situated at the garage of multi-storeyed Building and were interacting with the security namely one Madhusudan Dutta, certain individuals identified themselves as flat owners, including one individual claiming to be the Secretary of the Flat Owners Committee namely Chandan Kumar Shaw, who challenged the investigation and behaved uncooperatively despite being informed that the case was registered by the Chairman of Bhatpara Municipality and was being investigated. The investigating team was not allowed to continue the investigation and the accused person warned that the investigation team will not be allowed to visit the place of occurrence. When efforts were made to serve a notice under Section 179 of BNSS, to the individuals they became violent, used filthy and abusive language and obstructed the Police Officer from discharging their duty. Several persons including outsiders and women assembled at the garage area and inspite of repeated attempts to explain the legal necessity of investigation their behaviour escalated into a riotous situation. Assistance was sought from the Officer-in- Charge Bhatpara Police Station, who arrived at the spot with accompanying officer and additional force, however, after repeated efforts by the Officer-in- Charge to pacify the situation, the individuals, including several women, 3 continued their riotous behaviour and attacked the police thereby physically assaulting police personnel. Some of the accused persons injured the Police personnel by biting and also dragged the Officer-in-Charge by his uniform. This resulted in injuries to several officers and force including the Investigating Officer SI Asrajul Islam, Inspector Debasish Sarkar and Inspector Abid Hasan of Detective Department Barrackpore Police Commissionerate as also Shri Ardhenu Sekhar Desarkar, Officer-in-Charge Bhatpara Police Station, Sub- Inspector Subrata Mondal of Bhatpara Police Station, Sub-Inspector Souvik Biswas of Bhatpara Police Station, THG 890 Sumit Kumar Mondal, Constable No. 481 Ranjit Das, I.C. 2480 Jasmina Biswas, Constable 1549 Amit Sasmol, who were accompanying police personnel. The Officer-in-Charge, Bhatpara Police Station in order to restore peace arrested two accused persons namely Ashis Kumar Shaw and Chaman Singh for obstructing the Police Officers discharging in their lawful duties and assaulting public servants for disruption of the investigation process when the other accused persons namely Chandan Kumar Shaw, Priyangu Pandey and Ananda Pandey fled away. He therefore requested the Officer-in-Charge of Bhatpara Police Station to take legal action under Sections 126(2)/121(1)132/115(2)/118(1)/351(2)/189(2)/221 of BNS 2023 against arrested accused persons namely Ashis Kumar Shaw, Chaman Singh and also against accused Chandan Kumar Shaw, Priyangu Pandey and Anand Pandey.
Mr. Majumder learned Senior Advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that the petitioner is the proprietor of M/S Maa Enterprise 4 having its registered office within the jurisdiction of Bhatpara Municipality. According to the learned advocate the initiation of the present case has its roots in Bhatpara Police Station Case No. 669 of 2024 which was instituted against the petitioner by one Reba Raha. Being aggrieved by the initiation of Bhatpara Police Station Case No. 669 of 2024 petitioner challenged the same before the Hon'ble High Court, Calcutta wherein in CRR 5241 of 2024 by an order dated 12.12.2024 a direction was passed that no coercive steps be taken against the petitioner subject to the petitioner cooperating with the investigation of the case. The said order was extended from time to time. It was submitted on behalf of the petitioner that a bare perusal of the allegations levelled in the letter of complaint reveal that the instant proceeding was initiated by misusing the provisions of criminal law which is based on frivolous and baseless accusations. Petitioner contends that none of the allegations made in the FIR would constitute any offence as far as the present petitioner is concerned and the attending circumstances reflect that the instant proceeding has been instituted with vexatious and malafide intention.
Learned Advocate appearing for the petitioner submits that he would restrict his arguments on two issues. Firstly, that the allegations made against the petitioner from bare perusal of the FIR and complaint fails to make out any case and secondly, the attending circumstances reflect that the instant case/proceeding has been instituted with vexatious and malafide intention. In order to demonstrate the first contention so advanced, it has been submitted that the provisions levelled against the petitioner are baseless and on perusal 5 of the complaint, particularly, the charge levelled against him, no case is made out. It was reiterated that the genesis of the present case is Bhatpara Police Station No. 669 of 2024, which was registered for investigation against the petitioner and another leader from the party in opposition in the State of West Bengal, wherein it was alleged that the present petitioner entered into an agreement with Bhatpara Municipality for developing a property as per PPP model. The said agreement was executed on 08.01.2016 between the Bhatpara Municipality and company of the petitioner, which completed its work in the year 2018 and the completion certificate as also no objection certificate in respect of liquidation of loan for construction of flat under PPP model was issued to M/s Maa Madhuri Enterprise on 24.03.2019. It was further contended that Bhatpara Municipality only issued a notice to enter the said premises, where the plot is empty and still unoccupied, which would be reflected from the order passed in CRR 5241 of 2024. Additionally, it was pointed out that on bare perusal of the FIR/complaint, no specific role has been assigned to the petitioner other than merely stating that the petitioner was present and there are several contradictions in the averments made in the affidavit-in-opposition filed by the State respondents as well as the contents of the written complaint. To that effect, it was stated that the purpose of visit of the Police Officers at the place of occurrence reflects that the Police authorities had been there for serving notices to other persons, on the other hand, in the affidavit-in-opposition, it is stated that the Police authority went to serve notice under Section 160 CrPC/Section 179 BNSS, 2023 upon the petitioner and the 6 same was inspite of the fact that the petitioner happens to be an FIR named accused person, the FIR and the written complaint do not state any attack or biting by the petitioner. However, the affidavit-in-opposition by the State respondents refers to averments of biting by the petitioner, although the injuries which have been referred to are simple in nature and the medical reports so attached with the affidavit-in-opposition reflects that the alleged mob was led by Chandan Shaw and biting marks were done by Anand Kumar Pandey. The allegations as such against the petitioner do not in any manner reflect that the petitioner has voluntarily inflicted any injury or grievous hurt with any dangerous weapons or wrongfully restrained or obstructed the public servants/ police from discharging their public functions. Other than merely stating the presence of the petitioner, there was not a single averment or any role stated against the petitioner or any overt act assigned against him in the complainant. The entire dispute, even taken on its face value, fails to make out any case against the petitioner and by no stretch of imagination constitute any offence as alleged in the FIR and the FIR as such is a weapon of harassment for institution of malafide proceedings at the behest of the complainant which calls for interference by this Court.
Regarding the second argument put forth on behalf of the petitioner, which asserts that the circumstances surrounding the case indicate that the proceedings were initiated with vexatious and malafide intent, it was argued that the initiation of the present case was motivated by a desire for revenge 7 against the petitioner for filing a case against Ichini Somnath Shyam, the son of Reba Raha, who is the complainant in FIR No. 669 of 2024. To support this argument, the petitioner has outlined several sub-categories, including the following:
(a) The instant case has been instituted with malafide motive for wreaking vengeance against the petitioner. - In order to substantiate such issue petitioner contends that prior to Bhatpara Police Station Case No. 669 of 2024 being registered another case was instituted wherein the present petitioner was attacked on 28.08.2024 under the direction and instruction of Ichini Somnath Shyam and for which Bhatpara Police Station Case No. 509 of 2024 was registered. It was alleged therein that the petitioner was attacked with sharp edged weapons, bullets and explosive bombs. The action according to the petitioner was at the behest of certain persons belonging to the ruling dispensation under the direction of the said Ichini Somnath Shyam and Bhatpara Police Station Case No. 509 of 2024 dated 28.08.2024 was registered under Sections 189(2)/61(2)/126(2)/115(2)/118(1)/117(2)/109/324(4)/351(2) of the BNS, 2023 read with Section 25/27 of the Arms Act read with Section 3/4 of the Explosive Substances Act. The said case was subsequently transferred to the National Investigation Agency on 01.10.2024 consequent to which FIR No. RC 14/2024/NIA /DLI dated 01.10.2024 was registered. The said case refers to six named accused persons and sixteen miscreants. 8
(b) The complaint relating to Bhatpara Police Station Case No. 669 of 2024 was presented to the Police Station after an abnormal and inordinate delay and was registered on the self-same day when the complaint was lodged. Petitioners contended that after 6-7 years, suddenly Reba Raha came up with a complaint of an incident of the year 2015-2016 and without conducting any preliminary enquiry the police authority immediately registered the case on the same date in gross violation of the judgment of the guidelines set out in the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Lalita Kumari -v- State of U.P., (2014)2SCC1.
(c) Absence of the Investigating Officer of Bhatpara Police Station Case No. 669 of 2024 when it was alleged that investigation was being conducted on 21.12.2024, which are in the contents referred to in FIR No. 708 of 2024.
Although this point was initially taken up by the learned advocate on behalf of the petitioner but subsequently learned advocate for the petitioner did not pursue the issue orally when submitting his arguments, but has referred to the same in the written notes of argument. At the time of arguments, State has referred to the case diary and satisfied that the investigation of the case was transferred to Detective Department Barrackpore Police Commissionerate and was being dealt with by the new investigating officer namely Asrajul Islam.
(d) The provisions of 96(3) of BNSS, 2023 was not complied. It was argued that in order to conduct investigation specially when the place of occurrence was the office of M/s Maa Madhuri Enterprise, the police authorities ought to have followed the procedures as laid down under Section 96(3) of BNSS 2023, 9 with a search warrant to be issued when visiting the place of occurrence, the same not being there, it is doubtful that the police had authority to carry out the investigation in connection with Bhatpara Police Station Case No. 669 of 2024.
(e) Notice under Section 160 CrPC/Section 179 BNSS was proposed to be served upon the petitioner who is an FIR named accused. It was contended on behalf of the petitioner that the presence of the police authorities were mysterious and hazy in view of the overwhelming averments made in the affidavit-in- opposition, that although the petitioner was an FIR named accused person, yet the police authority intended to serve notice as it is required to be served upon a witness in a case and not an accused. To that effect, reference was made to Arnesh Kumar -v- State of Bihar, (2014)8SCC 273 and it was submitted that there are specific provisions of serving notice upon the accused persons and under the garb of any other Section an FIR named accused cannot be served with a notice.
(f) The documents attached to the annexures in the affidavit-in-opposition are contrary to the averments made by the respondent thereby reflecting that the petitioner has been implicated in a criminal case with the sole purpose of harassing and intimidating him. Attention of the Court was drawn to the annexures/enclosures to the affidavit-in-opposition wherein medical documents have been annexed by the State respondents for bringing it to the notice of the Court relating to the injuries sustained. It was submitted that 10 there are no corroborating materials in respect of the medical documents and in the absence of any corroboration, the statement relied upon by the State cannot be the sole foundation of implicating the petitioner as the medical documents if taken into consideration will show complicity of Anand Kumar Pandey and Chandan Kumar Shaw and there was no role of the petitioner which would reflect that the petitioner has any complicity in respect of the allegations made in the FIR and his name has been incorporated by way of wreaking vengeance with an ulterior motive because of the implication of the said Ichini Somnath Shyam in the case registered by NIA. Lastly, it was contended that the concept of malafide being dynamic, the Court should appreciate the chronology of cases for implicating the petitioner in connection with the instant case which would reflect that the act and action of the State is a malafide act. Learned advocate in order to substantiate his contention has relied upon the following judgments: Bikash Bej and ors vs the CBI with Farid Saha and Ors. vs CBI, C.R.R 1474 of 2024 with C.R.R. No. 1510 of 2024; State represented by Inspector of Police and others vs N.M.T Joy Immaculate, (2004) 5 SCC 729; Vineet Kumar and others vs State of Uttar Pradesh and another (2017) 13 SCC 369; Vivek Gupta Vs. State of West Bengal and Another, 2022 SCC Online Cal 4134; Rajkumar Mondal @ Raja and Another Vs. State of West Bengal, C.R.R 2917 of 2014; Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar and another, (2014) 8 SCC 273; State of Haryana Vs Bhajan Lal, 1992 SUPP (1) SC 335; Salib alias shalu alias salim vs state of U.P and others, 2023 SCC Online SC 947; Haji Iqbal alias Bala through S.P.O.A vs State of U.P and others 2023 SCC Online SC 948. 11
Mr. Kalyan Bandopadhyay, Learned Senior Advocate appearing on behalf of the State at the very inception contented that Bhatpara Police Station Case No. 669 of 2024 dated 28.11.2024 was registered for investigation on the basis of a complaint lodged by the chairperson of Bhatpara Municipality. Initially, the case was endorsed to Sub-Inspector Manirul Mollah of Bhatpara Police Station for investigation. However, the Commissioner of Police, Barrackpore Police Commissionerate, took up the investigation of the case and Sub-Inspector Asrajul Islam of the Detective Department, Barrackpore Police Commissionerate was assigned the investigation. On 21st December 2024, at about 04:20 P.M. the Investigating Officer, along with others of the Detective Department, Barrackpore Police Commissionerate, including Officers associated with Bhatpara Police Station, visited M/s Maa Madhuri Enterprise located at BL-06, Kakinara under Bhatpara Police Station for the purposes of investigation. When the investigation process was on, certain individuals arrived at the location, identifying themselves as flat owners and obstructed the police authorities from discharging their official duty. At the relevant point of time, the petitioner also arrived and abused the police officials, along with others, and to that effect, photographs of M/s Maa Madhuri Enterprise along with the petitioner being present and assaulting the police officers are available in the case diary. The incident was reported to the Officer-in-Charge Bhatpara Police Station for rendering assistance. Consequently, the Officer-in-Charge Bhatpara 12 Police Station, along with additional forces, arrived at the spot at about 6:50 P.M. and even after repeated efforts of the police officers for pacifying the situation, the individuals, including several women, continued with their riotous behaviour, use of abusive language, attacking the police personnel and physically assaulting them. Some of the accused persons, which included the petitioner, caused injuries to several police personnel by assaulting and biting them. The Officer-in-Charge of Bhatpara Police Station was also dragged when he was in uniform, and the unruly crowd at the instigation of the petitioner caused injuries to several police officials. To that effect, Learned Counsel has drawn the attention of the Court to the injury reports available in the case diary. It was also submitted that at the relevant point of time, two of the accused persons, namely Ashis Kumar Shaw and one Chaman Singh could be arrested. However, the petitioner, along with Chandan Kumar Shaw and Anand Pandey fled away from the spot and it was only after the aforesaid three persons fled away from the spot, the police officers could control the situation. After the aforesaid incident, Sub-Inspector Asrajul Islam lodged a complaint against Ashis Kumar Shaw, Chaman Singh, Chandan Kumar Shaw, Priyangu Pandey (the petitioner herein), Anand Pandey and 45/50 others. Based on such complaint, Bhatpara Police Station Case No. 708 of 2024 dated 21st December 2024 was registered for investigation. In course of investigation, from the statements of the arrested accused persons, it came to light that the present petitioner Priyangu Pandey 13 gathered his followers and associates to resist the police from investigating the case and the entire chaos was orchestrated by him to obstruct the police so that the police would be unable to unearth the truth in Bhatpara Police Station Case No. 669 of 2024.
To that effect Learned Senior Counsel has drawn the attention of the Court to the relevant statement of the witnesses. The present writ petition was preferred on 26th December, 2024 i.e. within 5 days of the registration of Bhatpara Police Station Case number 708 of 2024. It was contended that the investigation of Bhatpara Police Station Case No. 708 of 2024 is at a nascent stage even though the materials which have been collected are sufficient for the investigation of the case to continue, as the test of malafide which has been canvassed by the petitioner is not attracted at this initial stage when the police authority has been obstructed, assaulted, injured, dragged in uniform and has serious repercussions so far as law and order is concerned. The existence of previous cases are immaterial as the present case which is being investigated related to infliction of bodily injuries and obstruction of the public servants in discharging their official duties. Learned counsel pointed out that nowhere it has been contended that the public servants were not assaulted or they were not present at the spot, what has been contended is a case of false implication with a malafide motive. On the contrary the materials collected by the investigating agency within the short span of five days before there was interference by the High Court 14 will speak for itself. In order to substantiate his contentions learned Senior Advocate relied upon following judgments: Neeharika Infrastructure (P) Ltd. -versus- State of Maharashtra, (2021)19 SCC 401; State -versus- M. Maridoss, (2023) 4 SCC 338; State of Chhattisgarh - versus- Aman Kumar Sing, (2023) 6 SCC 559, State of Maharashtra - versus- Ishwar Piraji Kalpatri, (1996) 1 SCC 542; State of Orissa -versus- Debendra Nath Padhi, (2005) 1 SCC 568.
Before addressing the submissions put forth by the learned counsel for the petitioner, as well as the arguments presented by the State, it is crucial to outline the pertinent facts to evaluate the petitioner's request. Initially, a case was registered under Bhatpara Police Station Case No. 509 of 2024 on 28.08.2024, involving the investigation of one Ichini Somnath Shyam, who was alleged to have attacked the petitioner with sharp-edged weapons, firearms, and explosive devices. This case was later transferred to the National Investigation Agency on 01.10.2024. Thereafter, Bhatpara Police Station Case No. 669 of 2024 was registered against the petitioner, with the complainant being Reba Raha, the Chairman of Bhatpara Municipality and mother of Ichini Somnath Shyam. In relation to this case, the Hon'ble High Court, in CRR 5241 of 2024, issued an order directing that no coercive action be taken against the petitioner, contingent on the petitioner's cooperation with the investigation. Subsequently, Bhatpara Police Station Case No. 708 of 2024 was registered on 21.12.2024.
15
The question for this Court to resolve is whether the pendency of Bhatpara Police Station Case Nos. 509 of 2024 and 669 of 2024 can be considered a legitimate ground to allege malafide, thus necessitating interference for quashing of the proceedings in Bhatpara Police Station Case No. 708 of 2024.
In assessing the question of malafide, the Court must consider not only the immediate circumstances but also the broader context of the case. At the same time, the Court cannot disregard the evidence gathered by the investigating agency, particularly since it had only nine days to carry out its investigation. Further, it is to be determined whether the evidence gathered is so compelling that, unless this Court steps in, there would be an abuse of legal process, undermining the administration of justice. It is pertinent to note that the request for quashing of proceedings is one that should be exercised with utmost caution.
The criteria for evaluating the materials presented by an accused invoking the inherent powers under Section 482 of the CrPC, Section 528 of the BNSS, or Article 226 of the Constitution of India vary at different stages of the proceedings. A material that may be pertinent at the stage of charge consideration or during the final arguments, after the defense evidence has been concluded, may not necessarily be relevant at the stage of seeking quashing of the FIR.
The core issue here is to assess what materials were gathered by the investigating agency within the nine-day span during which the 16 investigation in Bhatpara Police Station Case No. 708 of 2024 was conducted, as documented in the case diary. Upon examining the case diary, it is evident that it includes medical documents detailing the injuries sustained by the police officers, along with their statements provided to the doctor. Moreover, the case diary contains the statements of the injured parties and witnesses. After reviewing these materials, I observe that the name of the petitioner appears consistently across all relevant documents, including the medical records and the statements made to the investigating officer. These statements are explicit in identifying the petitioner as the individual who led the mob, preventing the police from performing their official duties and causing harm to them. As such, there is substantial evidence against the petitioner, establishing his complicity in the offenses leading to the registration of Bhatpara Police Station Case No. 708 of 2024 and the continuation of the investigation under Sections 126(2)/121(1)/132/115(2)/118(1)/351(2)/189(2)/221 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.
In view of the aforementioned conclusions, I find that the petitioner's prayers do not necessitate any interference from this Court.
Accordingly, W.P.A. No. 31014 of 2024 is dismissed.
Interim order, if any, stands vacated.
Pending connected application(s), if any, are also disposed of. 17 All parties shall act on the server copy of this judgment duly downloaded from the official website of this Court.
Urgent photostat certified copy of this judgment, if applied for, be supplied to the parties upon compliance of all requisite formalities.
(Tirthankar Ghosh, J.)