Calcutta High Court: A single-judge bench comprising of Subhendu Samanta,* J., rejected the petitioner’s request to quash the criminal proceedings, emphasizing the importance of prima facie evidence and distinguishing the case from a precedent. The Court held that “revisional court has no power to determine the correctness, validity and probative value of the evidences collected by the I.O. during the course of investigation.”
Brief Facts
The instant matter involves a Criminal Revision filed under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (CrPC) seeking the quashing of proceedings against the petitioner-accused under Sections 306 and 120-B of the Penal Code, 1860 (IPC).
The complainant-opposite party 2, alleged that her husband was found hanging in her son’s bedroom on 22-08-2012, and he was declared dead upon arrival at Colombia Asia Hospital.
The complaint stated that the petitioner, along with four others, had been continuously harassing, threatening, and instigating her husband, leading to his mental trauma and eventual suicide. The police initiated a case based on the complaint and commenced an investigation.
Parties’ Contentions
The petitioner contended that the petitioner was innocent and unconnected to the alleged offense. It was claimed that the proceedings were frivolous, malicious, and based on a concocted story. The petitioner pointed out that the FIR did not contain an offense under Section 306 IPC, citing the precedent of State of Kerala v. S. Unikrishnan Naiar, (2015) 9 SCC 639, in which the Supreme Court quashed an FIR under Section 306 IPC.
The State contended that there were sufficient materials against the petitioner to proceed with the criminal trial, as indicated by witness statements and the police investigation.
Court’s Assessment
The Court observed that the case was initiated based on a complaint by the complainant, followed by a police investigation and the submission of a charge sheet against all five accused, including the petitioner. On reviewing the available evidence, the Court found prima facie materials suggesting the petitioner’s involvement in the alleged offense.
The Court cited S. Unikrishnan (Supra), in which the Supreme Court emphasized the importance of prima facie evidence in abetment of suicide cases and highlighted the presence of “species of fear” in the suicide note. However, the Court distinguished the present case from S. Unikrishnan Naiar (Supra), stating that the police had collected sufficient materials during the investigation.
The Court asserted that it could not determine the correctness, validity, or probative value of the evidence at this stage and that the Court was obligated to exercise jurisdiction under Section 482 of the CrPC only when there was no prima facie case.
“This revisional court has no power to determine the correctness, validity and probative value of the evidences collected by the I.O. during the course of investigation. This court is obliged in law to exercise jurisdiction u/s 482 Cr.P.C to quash a proceeding where there is no prima facie case. The fishing and roving inquiry regarding plausible defence is not acceptable at this stage.”
Court’s Verdict
The Court found the Criminal Revision to be meritless and dismissed it, along with any connected applications. Any previous stay orders issued by the court during the pendency of the revision were vacated.
[Rajiv Kumar Sing v. State of W.B., 2023 SCC OnLine Cal 2651, order dated 06-09-2023]
*Judgment by Justice Subhendu Samanta
Advocates who appeared in this case :
Mr. Rajdeep Mazumder, Mr. Moyukh Mukherjee, Mr. Pritam Roy, Mr. Abhijit Singh, Mr. Sarthak Mondal, Counsel for the Petitioners
Mr. Narayan Prasad Agarwala, Mr. Pratick Bose, Counsel for the Respondent/State
Buy Penal Code, 1860 HERE
Buy Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 HERE
