Calcutta High Court: A single-judge bench comprising of Shampa Dutt (Paul),* J., held that there is insufficient evidence to support the alleged offenses, and the complaint appeared absurd and improbable. The Court further held that there was no material on record to substantiate the allegations and no prima facie case against any of the petitioners. The Court allowed the revisional application and quashed the impugned proceeding and Charge Sheet.
Factual Matrix
In the instant matter, the petitioners sought the quashing of proceedings and Charge Sheet under Sections 341/323/506/34 of the Penal Code, 1860 (IPC).
The petitioners’ case was that petitioner 2, along with his mother, had purchased land in Chaitanyapur, West Bengal. The dispute arose when petitioner 2 attempted to install a boundary fence on the land on 13-02-2018. The opposite party-accused and others obstructed this action and demanded a sum of Rs. 5,00,000 as payment. The petitioner 2 was threatened with harm, leading him to pay Rs. 1,00,000 out of fear. Subsequently, due to non-payment of the remaining amount, on 11.03.2018, petitioner no. 2 was allegedly attacked by the opposite party-accused and others while planting trees on the land. This attack resulted in serious injuries and the loss of personal belongings, including a mobile phone, gold chain, and Rs. 2130. The attackers reportedly forced petitioner 2 to sign a blank paper and subjected him to further physical abuse.
The petitioners contended that despite lodging a general diary and later a complaint under Section 156(3) of the CrPC., the police did not take proper action against the accused. Instead, the police allegedly advised the accused to file a false written complaint against the petitioners which led to the initiation of multiple cases, including against the petitioners and against the private opposite party and associates.
Contentions
The petitioners’ counsel argued that the proceedings against the petitioners were maliciously instituted and lacked prima facie evidence. On the other hand, the state’s counsel presented the case diary but the injury report had limited information.
Moot Point
-
Whether the proceeding against the petitioners should be quashed due to its alleged false and fabricated nature.
-
Whether there is prima facie evidence to support the allegations against the petitioners.
Court’s Observation and Verdict
The Court noted that there is an absence of substantial evidence, including medical documentation and case diary entries, to substantiate the alleged offences and injuries. The Court further observed that the complaint seemed absurd and inherently improbable, lacking a basis for a prudent person to conclude that there were sufficient grounds for proceeding against the petitioners. The Court found that the criminal proceeding against the petitioners appeared to be maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive.
“The complaint is so absurd and inherently improbable on the basis of which no prudent person can ever reach a just conclusion that there is sufficient grounds for proceeding against the petitioners.”
The Court held that the criminal proceeding against the petitioners seemed to be maliciously instituted and allowed the revision application. The Court quashed the impugned proceeding and Charge Sheet and disposed of all connected applications.
[Panchanan Ghorai v. State of W.B., 2023 SCC OnLine Cal 2434, order dated 22-08-2023]
*Judgment by Justice Shampa Dutt (Paul)
Advocates who appeared in this case:
Mr. Prokash Chandra Mondal and Mr. Debabrata Mondal, Counsel for the Petitioners;
Mr. Md. Kutubuddin, Counsel for the Respondent/State.
Buy Penal Code, 1860 HERE
Buy Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 HERE
