Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)
Shaikh Mohammed Hanif vs The State Of West Bengal & Ors on 5 June, 2014
Author: R. K. Bag
Bench: R. K. Bag
1
3.
05.06.2014
F.B. CRR No. 914 of 2014 Shaikh Mohammed Hanif Vs. The State of West Bengal & Ors.
In the matter of : An application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.
Mr. Shaikh Mohammed Hanif ..... The Petitioner-in-person.
Mr. Ranadeb Sengupta ..... For the State.
The supplementary affidavit filed on behalf of the petitioner is kept with the record.
The petitioner has preferred this criminal revision for quashing the proceeding being G.R. Case No. 927 of 2011 arising out of Chandannagar P.S. Case No. 136 of 2011 dated 5th December, 2011 pending before the Court of learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Chandannagar, Hooghly.
It appears from the materials on record that the opposite party no. 2 started the criminal proceeding against the petitioner and other co-accused persons and the written information given by the opposite party no. 2 was registered as Chandannagar P.S. Case No. 136 of 2011 dated 5th December, 2011. It also appears 2 from record that the police investigated the case and submitted charge sheet against the petitioner and other co-accused persons on 29th February, 2012 under Sections 498A/406 of the Indian Penal Code. The petitioner being father-in-law of the opposite party no. 2 has prayed for quashing the said criminal proceeding.
Mr. Shaikh Mohammed Hanif appearing in person submits that the allegations made in the FIR by the opposite party no. 2 are false and that the opposite party no. 2 was living in adultery which was detected by him and that the opposite party no. 2 was divorced by following the provision of Mohammedan Law and as such, the criminal proceeding should be quashed.
The notice was issued to the opposite party no. 2 through the police authority and a report is submitted in this behalf by Mr. Ranadeb Sengupta, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State. Let the report be kept with the record. It is pertinent to point out that in spite of service of notice, the opposite party no. 2 has not turned up before this Court to participate in the hearing of the case.
Mr. Ranadeb Sengupta, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State contends that there are enough materials available in the case diary to prosecute the accused persons and that the date is already fixed before the Court of learned Magistrate for framing of the charge.
The proposition of law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of "Union of India V. Prakash P. 3 Hinduja reported in 2003 SCC (Cri) 1314" for quashing the criminal proceeding by exercise of inherent power under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is as follows:
(i) Where the allegations made in the FIR or complaint even if they are taken at their face value and accepted in entirety do not prima facie constitute any offence against the accused,
(ii) 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 against the accused and
(iii) Where there is an express legal bar engrafted in any of the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure or the Act concerned to the institution and continuance of the proceedings.
It is also laid down by the Apex Court in the case of "Rupan Deol Bajaj V. Kanwar Pal Singh Gill reported in 1995 SCC (Cri) 1059 that the criminal proceeding may be quashed by invoking power under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 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.
In the above proposition of law laid down by the Apex Court, it is necessary to go through the materials collected by the investigating agency as available in the case diary.
On consideration of the contents of the written complaint treated as FIR and the statements of the witnesses recorded under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, I cannot persuade myself to hold that no cognizable offence is made out against the accused persons including the present 4 petitioner. Nor can I persuade myself to hold that the allegations made in the FIR are so absurd and inherently improbable on the basis of which no prudent person can come to the conclusion that there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused.
In view of my above findings, I do not find any merit in the submission made by the petitioner-in-person. Accordingly, this criminal revision is dismissed.
The department is directed to send down a copy of this order to the learned Court below for favour of information and necessary action.
Criminal Section is directed to supply urgent Photostat certified copies of this order to the parties, if applied for, after compliance with all necessary formalities.
( R. K. Bag, J. )