AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Madhumati Mitra, J
Present petitioners are the accused in connection with Marishda Police Station Case No.81 of 2013 dated 23.05.2013 under Section 342/420/506/34 of the Indian Penal Code pending before the Learned Judicial Magistrate, 3rd Court, Contai, Purba Mednipore.
Petitioners have approached before this Court praying for an order to quash the proceedings mentioned above pending against them.
Exercise of inherent power under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to have the First Information Report or written complaint or the charge sheet quashed is an exception rather a rule and the case for quashing requires to be treated as rarest of rare so as not to scuttle the prosecution.
Before proceeding further in the matter, let me now deal with the facts and offences alleged in the First Information Report.
On 23.05.2013, the opposite party no.2 lodged an FIR with Marishda Police Station against the present petitioners. It was stated in the said FIR that petitioners in the year 2007 were in need of money and they approached for money to the complainant and proposed to sell 13 ½ decimal of land. Complainant was not willing to purchase the land as the same had not been partitioned by metes and bounds. The petitioners/accused were in urgent need of money and as such they proposed to sell the said land at a consideration of Rs.5,46,000/- (Rupees Five Lakh Forty Six Thousand) after disposal of the partition suit being T.S.No.07 of 2000 pending before the Learned Civil Judge, Senior Division, 2nd Court, Contai, amongst the co-sharers. Thereafter, on 05.06.2007 the petitioners took Rs.3,20,000/- (Rupees Three Lakh Twenty Thousand) as advance out of settled price of Rs.5,46,000/- (Rupees Five Lakh Forty Six Thousand), in presence of witnesses and agreed to sell the property in the favour of the complainant. On 05.06.2007, the petitioner/accused executed an agreement for sale in the favour of the complainant. When the partition suit was decreed the complainant asked to the petitioners to execute sale deed in their favour in respect of the said land as per agreement but the petitioners adopted dilatory tacties in different pretexts. On 23.05.2013 at 7:00 p.m, when the complainant visited the residence of the petitioners requesting them to execute the deed of gift but they told the complainant that the value of the land in question had been enhanced and demanded huge amount to execute the sale deed. Complainant refused to pay the amount as demanded by the petitioners/accused. Then the petitioners/accused refused to execute the sale deed in favour of the complainant and confined them in a room and forced them to put their signatures on blank papers for the purpose of using the same as documents against them.
On the basis of the First Information Report lodged by the complainant, Marishda Police Station Case No.81 of 2013, dated 23.05.2013 under Section 342/420/506/34 of the Indian Penal Code was started against the FIR named accused persons. Investigation ended in submission of charge sheet under Section 342/420/506/34 of the Indian Penal Code against the present petitioners.
On 28.07.2014, charge was framed against the petitioners for committing alleged offences under Section 342/420/506 of the Indian Penal Code.
Where the allegations made in the FIR or the statements of the witnesses recorded in support of the same taken at their face value do not constitute any offence against the petitioners or the averments of the First Information Report do not disclose the ingredients of the alleged offences, then the question of quashing the criminal proceedings comes.
It is the specific submissions of the petitioners that the averments made in the First Information Report show the existence of a civil dispute regarding non-execution of sale deed by the petitioners in favour of the complainant. It has been further contended that the ingredients of the alleged offences are not disclosed in the averments made in the First Information Report.
I have perused the First Information Report carefully. On perusal of the First Information Report, I am of the view that First Information Report disclosed the commission of the alleged offences.
Merely because the alleged offences were committed in the back ground of a dispute regarding non-execution of sale deed by the petitioners in favour of the complainant, would not be sufficient to hold that the entire allegations made in the First Information Report are of civil nature and the entire criminal proceedings require to be quashed. Whatever appears on the face value of the First Information Report shall be taken into consideration without any critical examination of the same. The contention of the petitioners that they have been falsely implicated in the criminal proceeding pending before the Learned Magistrate as they could not execute the sale deed in favour of the complainant due to pendency of the partition suit.
It has been contended by the petitioners that continuation of criminal proceedings against them would be an abuse of the process of the Court.
While deciding an application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure the High Court should not perform the function of Trial Court. The question whether the allegations contained in the First Information Report are true or not is to be dealt with by the Trial Court on the basis of evidence adduced by the parties during trial.
On a careful reading of the First Information Report, I am of the view that the FIR disclosed the commission of alleged offences. It is not a fit case to exercise jurisdiction of the High Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
The above discussions and observations led me to hold that the continuation of the criminal proceedings against the petitioners would not be an abuse of the process of the Court.
Hence, the prayer of the petitioners to quash the proceeding pending before the Learned Magistrate is dismissed.
Before parting with the case, I would like to clarify that the observations as above in this judgment should not be taken as an expression of any opinion regarding the merit of the criminal proceedings pending before the Learned Magistrate. The Learned Trial Magistrate shall proceed with the criminal proceedings and dispose of the same in accordance with the law.
Urgent Photostat certified copy of this judgment be supplied to the parties, if applied for, upon compliance with all formalities.