AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
This application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure has been filed for quashing Birpara Police Station case No. 163 of 2008 dated 26th April, 2008 under Section 448/506/34 of the Indian Penal Code corresponding to G.R. Case No. 1455/08, on the ground that defacto complainant had lodged an F.I.R against the present petitioners alleging inter-alia that by making false representation and by fabricating and forging some documents they had sold an old Tata Safari vehicle to the defacto complainant. As per the defacto complainant the petitioners who were released on bail on the very date of their production before learned Court below and thereafter they had misused the liberty granted to them and that is why some unknown persons had threatened the defacto complainant with dire consequences and accordingly the present case was filed by defacto complainant.
Learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioner contended that in order to feed fat her grudge the defacto complainant has falsely filed the instant case since the petitioners were released on bail in the case filed by the defacto complainant. It is further contended that the first information report did not show any case under Section 448/506/34 of the Indian Penal Code since the defacto complainant had specifically stated in her written complainant(first information report) that some unknown persons had threatened the defacto complainant and her husband and she even did not name the present petitioners. On that score learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioner has referred the decision reported in 2005 SCC(Cri) 283(Zandu Pharmaceutical Works Ltd. & Ors. V. Mohd. Sharaful Haque & Anr.) and 1992 SCC (Cri) 426(State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal).
Hon''ble Apex Court has categorically observed in Bhajan Lal''s case that 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, in that event, such case is required to be quashed by invoking the power under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
Learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the State however candidly contended that the investigation of the case under reference has already been culminated in filing of charge sheet against the petitioner and at this stage there is absolutely no scope to embark upon an inquiry as to the reliability of the evidence and sustainability of the accusation on a reasonable appreciation of such evidence, collected during investigation and therefore the prayer for quashing the entire case under reference should not be allowed.
On careful consideration of the entire facts and circumstances, it transpires that admittedly the name of the petitioner was not disclosed at the time of filing the first information report by the defacto complainant. As per defacto complainant, the petitioner had threatened the defacto complainant and her husband by entering into their house. Unfortunately, the husband of the defacto complainant did not support her and as per the statement recorded under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the husband came later on and came to know about the occurrence from his wife. The other witnesses also were not present at the time of occurrence and accordingly it was impossible on their part to identify the present petitioner as the person who had allegedly threatened the defacto complainant. On careful scrutiny of the materials on record it transpires that the case has simply been filed by the defacto complainant in order to make out the case for cancellation of the bail of the petitioner in connection with the case, which was filed by the defacto complainant against the present petitioner on earlier occasion for selling out one vehicle to the defacto complainant. In matters of merit, the case under reference is the outcome of frustration of defacto complainant since the petitioner was released on bail.
Be that as it may it is settled principle of law that the High Court shall not assume the role of a trial Court and embark upon an enquiry to assess the reliability of the evidence. In that view of this case I am not in a position to invoke the power under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to quash the entire proceedings. Resultantly the prayer for quashing the Birpara Police Station Case No. 163/08, dated 26.04.2008 is refused and the application is disposed of.
Learned trial Court is thus directed to dispose of the Birpara Police Station Case NO. 163/08 within a period of three months from the date of receipt of the copy of this order without giving any unnecessary adjournment to either of the parties and by resorting to the provision of Section 309 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
The petitioner is at liberty to produce certified copy of this order before the learned trial Court.
Stay order if there be any is thus vacated.
A copy of this order be also forwarded to the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Alipurduar forthwith for information and compliance.
Urgent photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for, be given to the parties as expeditiously as possible.