AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
SHAMPA DUTT (PAUL), J.:-
The revisional application has been preferred, praying for quashing of the proceedings in connection with Jagaddal Police Station Case No. 475 of 2019 dated 03.06.2019 under sections 435/147/148//149/447/448/341 /379/427/34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, including charge sheet under Sections 147/148//149/447/448/341/37 9/427/34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, pending before the Court of the Learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Barrackpore (corresponding to GR Case no. 2658 of 2019).
The petitioner’s case in short is that the de facto complainant herein lodged the complaint against the petitioner alleging that on 20.05.2019 a group of hooligans/miscreants broke into the opposite party no.2's house and started breaking all the items in the house and stole different household articles and also looted money. They also looted several other housed in that area and damaged them and also set fire to them. The opposite party no.2 also stated 22 names whose houses were damaged. Over this complaint the case was registered for investigation against one rioting mob.
State has placed the case diary and the petitioner has filed his written notes.
The petitioner has denied the entire case as made out by the de facto complainant. The petitioner has also relied upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in State of Haryana v. Bhajanlal reported in AIR 1992 SC 604. It is the further case of the petitioner that the name of the petitioner is not in the FIR. His name has appeared for the first time in the charge sheet.
The petitioner relies upon the following judgment:-
Salib @ Shalu @ Salim v. State of UP and Ors.; 2023 SCC OnLine SC 947.
ii) Haji Iqbal @ Bala through S.P.O.A v. State of UP and Ors.; 2023 SCC OnLine SC 948.
On hearing the learned Counsel for the parties including the learned Counsel for the State and on perusal of the materials on record it appears that admittedly the petitioner was not named in the FIR even though 22 persons have been specifically named in the written complaint. It appears that the name of the petitioner has transpired only from the statement of some witnesses who have named about 30 persons and there is no specific overact on the part of petitioner herein.
In State of Haryana and Others v. Ch. Bhajan Lal and Others, 1992 Supp. (1) 335, the Supreme Court held:-
“102.In the backdrop of the interpretation of the various relevant provisions of the Code under Chapter XIV and of the principles of law enunciated by this Court in a series of decisions relating to the exercise of the extraordinary power under Article 226 or the inherent powers under Section 482 of the Code which we have extracted and reproduced above, we give the following categories of cases by way of illustration wherein such power could be exercised either to prevent abuse of the process of any court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice, though it may not be possible to lay down any precise, clearly defined and sufficiently channelised and inflexible guidelines or rigid formulae and to give an exhaustive list of myriad kinds of cases wherein such power should be exercised.
(1)Where the allegations made in the first information report or the complaint, even if they are taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety do not prima facie constitute any offence or make out a case against the accused.
(2)Where the allegations in the first information report and other materials, if any, accompanying the FIR do not disclose a cognizable offence, justifying an investigation by police officers under Section 156(1) of the Code except under an order of a Magistrate within the purview of Section 155(2) of the Code.
(3)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 and make out a case against the accused.
(4)Where, the allegations in the FIR do not constitute a cognizable offence but constitute only a non-cognizable offence, no investigation is permitted by a police officer without an order of a Magistrate as contemplated under Section 155(2) of the Code.
(5)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.
(6)Where there is an express legal bar engrafted in any of the provisions of the Code or the concerned Act (under which a criminal proceeding is instituted) to the institution and continuance of the proceedings and/or where there is a specific provision in the Code or the concerned Act, providing efficacious redress for the grievance of the aggrieved party.
(7)Where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with mala fide and/or where the proceeding is maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance on the accused and with a view to spite him due to private and personal grudge.”
The present case is thus clearly covered by the guidelines in State of Haryana vs Bhajanlal (Supra) (Para 102).
CRR 4788 of 2024 is allowed.
The proceeding in connection with Jagaddal Police Station Case No. 475 of 2019 dated 03.06.2019 under sections 435/147/148//149/447/448/341 /379/427/34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, including charge sheet under Sections 147/148//149/447/448/341/37 9/427/34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, pending before the Court of the Learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Barrackpore (corresponding to GR Case no. 2658 of 2019), is hereby quashed in respect of the petitioner namely Monu Prasad Tanti.
All connected applications, if any, stand disposed of.
Interim order, if any, stands vacated.
Copy of this judgment be sent to the learned Trial Court for necessary compliance.
Urgent certified website copy of this judgment, if applied for, be supplied expeditiously after complying with all, necessary legal formalities.