Calcutta High Court: In a revision seeking quashing of proceedings under Section 144(2) of the CrPC before the Metropolitan and Executive Magistrate, Calcutta, a single-judge bench comprising of Shampa Dutt (Paul),* J., dismissed the revision, stating that the interference of the Court is not required at this stage, considering the lapse of time and the availability of legal recourse for altering the prior order under Section 144(5) CrPC.
In the instant matter, the petitioner’s mother resides in ancestral property with the petitioner’s youngest brother. The eldest brother, Opposite Party 2, allegedly illegally lets out portions of the property for unlawful business, leading to security concerns and thefts. The petitioner reported the matter to the local police, leading to the initiation of proceedings under Section 144(2) CrPC on 29-09-2020.
The Court, on 29-09-2020, directed a police report and maintenance of peace, fixing the next date for 09-11-2020. The petitioner communicated this order to Opposite Party 2 through registered post on 05-10-2020. Despite knowledge of the order, Opposite Party 2 filed a case under Section 144(2) CrPC, suppressing facts and obtaining an order on 16-10-2020 for an inquiry and police report.
The petitioner preferred the present petition seeking to quash the proceedings filed by Opposite Party 2. The petitioner challenged the subsequent order of 16-10-2020, contending that it was obtained without disclosing the prior order of 29-09-2020. The petitioner invoked Section 144(5) CrPC, arguing that the subsequent order should be rescinded or altered, as it was passed when the prior order was still in force. Opposite Party 2 failed to appear despite service.
The Court observed that the subsequent order was passed ex-parte in a separate proceeding for the same property when the prior order was still valid. It was observed that Section 144(5) CrPC empowers a magistrate to rescind or alter an order, but the petitioner failed to bring the prior order to the Court’s notice. The Court suggested that the petitioner could have taken recourse to Section 144(5) CrPC to alter the prior order, which was not done.
As proceedings under Section 144 CrPC remain in force for not more than two months, and both cases were initiated in 2020, the Court found no need for interference at this stage. The Court concluded that interference is not required, as both proceedings were initiated in 2020. The Court disposed of the present petition with no order as to costs, and all connected applications are disposed of.
[Pranab Roy v. State of W.B., 2023 SCC OnLine Cal 4813, order dated 05-12-2023]
*Judgment by Justice Shampa Dutt (Paul)
Advocates who appeared in this case :
Mr. Mayukh Mukherjee, Counsel for the Petitioner
Mr. Arijit Ganguly, Mr. Sanjib Kumar Dan, Counsel for the State
Buy Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 HERE
