Ruma Sarkar vs State Of West Bengal & Anr.

UDAY KUMAR, J.: –

It is a well-entrenched and salutary principle of criminal jurisprudence that the extraordinary and inherent powers vested in this Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, must be exercised with extreme circumspection, caution, and a deep sense of judicial restraint. Criminal proceedings ought not to be throttled at their very inception, nor is this revisional forum the appropriate platform to conduct a mini-trial or sift through disputed questions of fact that essentially form the domain of the trial court. Where the materials collected during investigation or placed on record, such as signed agreement papers and negotiable instruments bearing the signatures of the accused, disclose a prima facie case of involvement, the doors of justice cannot be bolted against the prosecution by prematurely cutting short a trial.

The present revisional application invites me to examine the delicate balance between protecting citizens from malicious and vexatious persecutions on one hand, and ensuring that economic frauds and criminal conspiracies, supported by tangible documentary material, are subjected to the rigorous scrutiny of a trial before a court of competent jurisdiction.

To appreciate the true perspective of the controversy at hand, a detailed narration of the factual matrix leading to the institution of the present proceeding is imperative. The genesis of the prosecution traces back to a comprehensive letter of complaint lodged by the opposite party no. 2 (Rajib Dey) before the Officer-in-Charge of the Lake Town Police Station, thus initiating the connected criminal proceeding being G.R. Case No. 323 of 2023 arising out of Lake Town Police Station Case No. 53 of 2023 under Sections 420/406/467/468/471/120B of the Indian Penal Code, currently pending before the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bidhannagar, which the petitioner seeks to quash by way of the present revisional application.

The complainant, a student belonging to a modest financial background, was in active search of employment. In August 2018, he met the petitioner’s husband, Shyamal Sarkar, who represented himself as an employee of the Government of West Bengal and held out an assurance that he possessed the administrative clout and capacity to secure a government job in Group "D" categories.

Trusting these assurances, the complainant allegedly visited the residence shared by the accused persons and, over multiple occasions and locations, parted with a substantial aggregate sum amounting to Rs. 16,28,000/-. When the promised appointments failed to materialize despite persistent follow-ups, the accused persons ultimately handed over purported appointment letters issued by the Government of West Bengal, which, upon verification from competent authorities, were discovered to be thoroughly forged, fabricated, and fake.

Confronted with this deception, when the complainant demanded a refund of his hard-earned money, the petitioner and her co-accused executed formal agreement papers with the Opposite Party No. 2 and handed over three specific cheque leaves bearing their signatures toward the liquidation of the liability. Upon presentation to the bank, all those cheques were dishonoured due to insufficiency of funds and closure of accounts. These glaring sequences of events prompted the lodging of the formal First Information Report, giving rise to Lake Town Police Station Case No. 53 of 2023 dated April 4, 2023. It is pertinent to record that an earlier complaint registered by the Opposite Party No. 2 at Shyampukur Police Station (Shyampukur P.S. Case No. 185 of 2019) had met its demise following judicial intervention regarding territorial jurisdiction, wherein an order dated April 8, 2021 passed by a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court, had quashed the said criminal proceeding upon a report by the Deputy Commissioner of Police (North and North Suburban Division) establishing that the premises at 2A, Mohanlal Street fell outside the jurisdiction of the Shyampukur Police Station and within the jurisdiction of the Ultadanga Police Station. Consequently, after proper administrative and legal alignment, the instant FIR came to be legally instituted before the proper and competent police station namely, Lake Town Police Station, having jurisdiction over the actual unfolding of the subsequent financial transactions and execution of documents. Upon completion of the investigation, a charge-sheet having been filed (Chargesheet No. 324/24 dated September 30, 2024), the matter progressed before the learned Magistrate, prompting the petitioner to invoke the inherent jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 CrPC for quashment.

Mr. Imtiaz Ahmed, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, launched a multi-pronged attack against the continuation of the criminal proceeding, submitting that the entire prosecution is an abuse of the process of the court. He forcefully argued that the allegations levelled in the First Information Report are inherently improbable, absurd, and fail to disclose the essential ingredients of criminal culpability against the petitioner, who is a middle-class school teacher. The learned counsel contended that the specific role attributed to the petitioner is vague, generalized, and lacks the precision required to sustain a criminal charge, being merely an attempt to rope her in solely on the strength of her marital tie to the primary accused, Shyamal Sarkar.

Expanding upon the procedural history, Mr. Ahmed drew the attention of this Court to pages 28 and 29 of the revisional application, pointing out that pursuant to an order dated March 25, 2021, passed by the Co-ordinate Bench in connection with earlier litigations originating from a complaint by one Shambhu Bairagya, the Deputy Commissioner of Police, North and North Suburban Division, Kolkata, had explicitly reported that premises No. 2A, Mohanlal Street fell within the territorial limits of Ultadanga Police Station and not Shyampukur Police Station. He submitted that the earlier proceeding initiated by the Opposite Party No. 2, registered as Shyampukur P.S. Case No. 185 of 2019 dated September 21, 2019, under Sections 420/406 /409/465/467/468/471 /474 /120B IPC was subsequently quashed by a competent judicial order dated April 8, 2021. Building upon this foundation, the petitioner contended that the present proceedings at Lake Town (Case No. 53 of 2023 dated April 4, 2023) are infected by the same jurisdictional malady, tainted by a perfunctory and mechanical charge-sheet, and represent a recycled persecution built upon a foundation that has already judicially crumbled.

Furthermore, Mr. Ahmed submitted that the simultaneous invocation of Section 406 (Criminal Breach of Trust) and Section 420 (Cheating) of the Indian Penal Code is a fatal legal paradox, as both sections require mutually exclusive and contradictory mental elements; trust and entrustment on one hand, and dishonest inducement from the very inception on the other. He further submitted that the continuation of the proceeding exposes the petitioner to unwarranted harassment, mental agony, and social stigma, and therefore, the inherent powers of this Court must be invoked to quash the proceeding in limine to secure the ends of justice.

Per contra, Mr. Pawan Kumar Gupta, learned counsel appearing for the State and the private opposite party, stoutly defended the validity and continuation of the criminal proceeding, meeting each limb of the petitioner's challenge with robust documentation. He submitted that while an earlier iteration of litigation involving different complainants at Shyampukur met a technical end due to a wrong police station address, the present prosecution at Lake Town Police Station is founded on a distinct and independent substratum of facts, fresh statements, and concrete documentary evidence. Crucially, the learned counsel directed my attention to the Case Diary, specifically to pages 16, 18 and 26, which contain sterling, unimpeachable documentary evidence of a prima facie nature, including formal agreement papers and three specific signed cheques executed by the petitioner, Ruma Sarkar, which subsequently bounced upon presentation due to insufficiency of funds and account closure. He emphasized that these incriminating signatures provide direct, tangible prima facie proof of her active complicity, direct participation, and connivance in the fraudulent design, effectively shattering the defence that she is an unconcerned bystander or a victim of circumstance.

To fortify the sequence of complicity, Mr. Gupta highlighted the statement of one Md. Hamim Rahman recorded under Section 161 of the CrPC, available at page 53 of the Case Diary, which corroborates the active role played by the accused persons. Furthermore, it is brought to the notice of this Court that the conduct of the petitioner, marked by a frequent and deliberate changing of residential addresses and telephone numbers, is an implied indicator of a guilty mind and a dishonest intention present from the very inception, squarely fulfilling the parameters of fraudulent cheating.

With respect to the technical objection regarding Sections 406 and 420 IPC raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Gupta submitted that such overlapping penal provisions in an initial police report represent mere allegations and drafting styles, which do not vitiate the proceeding at the threshold and are matters exclusively within the domain of the trial court to sift through at the time of framing charges. He contended that the factual matrix establishes a solid prima facie case which, if tested on the touchstone of the landmark principles laid down in State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal (1992 Supp (1) SCC 335), completely bars the exercise of quashing power at the threshold.

Upon a comprehensive evaluation of the pleadings, the statutory framework, the judicial precedents cited, and the rival submissions advanced at the bar, the following core questions emerge for determination in the present revisional application:

Taking up the first question for determination regarding the sufficiency of material and the propriety of quashing, we must examine the precise parameters governing the exercise of inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure when confronted with petitions seeking the quashment of criminal proceedings involving economic offenses and documentary evidence. It is a well-established proposition of criminal jurisprudence that the High Court, while exercising its quashing jurisdiction, does not function as a trial court or an appellate forum to weigh the probative value of evidence or test the veracity of signatures through a summary procedure akin to a mini-trial. While the petitioner has laid considerable emphasis on the historical context of the Shyampukur P.S. proceedings (Case No. 185 of 2019) being quashed on April 8, 2021, pursuant to the report of the Deputy Commissioner of Police regarding jurisdiction over 2A, Mohanlal Street, we find that the said technical dismissal did not exonerate the petitioner on merits, nor does it erect a legal bar against a fresh, legally competent investigation instituted at the proper forum, namely, Lake Town Police Station, where subsequent transactions, agreements, and dishonoured instruments unfolded.

The record before us is replete with incriminating materials of a sterling quality at this preliminary stage. Specifically, the signature of the petitioner appearing on the agreement paper and her signatures on the cheque leaves handed over toward discharge of the fraudulent liability, coupled with the 161 CrPC statement of Md. Hamim Rahman at page 53 of the Case Diary and the conspicuous pattern of shifting addresses and phone numbers, provide a robust prima facie foundation establishing her active participation and complicity in the entire transaction.

The Hon’ble Supreme Court of India, in a long and consistent line of landmark authorities, has repeatedly cautioned that where a complaint discloses cognizable offenses and is supported by prima facie documentary material, the criminal proceeding must not be intercepted. In the celebrated judgment of State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal (supra), the Apex Court delineated the parameters for the exercise of powers under Section 482, specifically holding in paragraph 102 as follows:

Further reinforcing this principle in the context of economic offenses carrying criminal hues, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Sujit Biswas v. State of Assam [(2013) 12 SCC 406)] and more recently in Neeharika Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Maharashtra and Others [(2020) 10 SCC 118) has underscored that a criminal prosecution cannot be throttled at the threshold when the allegations, coupled with documentary links, make out a triable case. The presence of the petitioner's signatures on the financial instruments and agreements creates a strong presumption of active involvement that requires a thorough evidentiary probe during trial. To cut short the prosecution at this stage by ignoring such tangible materials would result in a travesty of justice.

Addressing the second question for determination concerning the simultaneous invocation of Section 406 and Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code and the technical objections raised by the defence, I find substantial merit in the submissions advanced by the opposite parties. It is true that criminal breach of trust under Section 406 requires an initial lawful entrustment of property, whereas cheating under Section 420 requires a dishonest inducement right from the very inception, making the two mental elements distinct. However, it is equally well-settled that at the stage of an FIR or a police report, the inclusion of multiple penal sections reflects the allegations levelled by the victim as per the preliminary understanding of the investigating agency.

Such drafting, if overlaps with the technical incongruities between penal provisions, do not strike at the root of the prosecution so as to render it void ab initio. As repeatedly affirmed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in cases such as Sanjay Kumar Rai v. State of Uttar Pradesh and Another [(2022) 15 SCC 720)] and Central Bureau of Investigation v. Aryan Singh and Others [(2023) 18 SCC 399)], the stage for examining whether the ingredients of specific offenses like Section 406 or Section 420 IPC are fully satisfied or whether they are mutually exclusive on proven facts, is exclusively reserved for the trial court at the time of framing charges or during the evaluation of evidence. A meticulous dissection of penal sections during a mini-trial to test whether an accused can be tried under both provisions simultaneously is impermissible under Section 482 CrPC. The trial court is fully empowered and legally equipped to apply its judicial mind to the charge-sheet and the annexed documents at the appropriate procedural stage to determine the exact framing of charges.

Accordingly, both questions for determination are answered against the petitioner: the existence of prima facie documentary evidence necessitates a regular trial, and technical challenges concerning territorial jurisdiction as well as overlapping penal sections do not ipso facto vitiate the proceeding and such matters fall squarely within the domain of the trial court at the time of framing charges. Weighing the entire conspectus of facts, the applicable statutory provisions, and the binding precedents of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, I am of the firm and considered opinion that this is not a case where the inherent powers of this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. ought to be invoked to quash the proceedings. Whether the Lake Town Police Station is the proper and competent forum, the dismissal of the earlier criminal proceeding having gotten purely on a technicality of territorial jurisdiction rather than merits; the investigation having revealed concrete prima facie documentary links through signatures on agreements and cheques, supported by witness statements and the conduct of the petitioner; and the technical nuances regarding overlapping penal sections are matters to be addressed by the trial court at the appropriate stage. The present revisional application, therefore, lacks merit and must fail.

This Court holds that the criminal proceeding being G.R. Case No. 323 of 2023 arising out of Lake Town Police Station Case No. 53 of 2023 dated April 4, 2023, under Sections 420/406/467/468/471/120B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, pending before the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bidhannagar, discloses prima facie triable issues and is supported by substantive documentary materials, including signatures on agreement papers and negotiable instruments, which necessitate a full-fledged trial rather than interference under the inherent jurisdiction of this Court.

Consequently, the revisional application, being C.R.R. No. 2047 of 2023, stands dismissed.

Any interim order passed earlier in this proceeding stands vacated forthwith.

There shall be no order as to costs.

Let a certified copy of this judgment, be transmitted immediately to the learned Trial court for necessary compliance, and the trial court is directed to expedite the proceeding in accordance with law without granting unnecessary adjournments to either party.

Case diary, be returned to the Learned Counsel for the State.

Urgent photostat certified copy of this judgment, if applied for, be supplied to the parties upon compliance with all requisite formalities.