AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
All the above mentioned revisional applications stem from the same G.R.
Case No. 286 of 2005 and arose from the same F.I.R. So with the consent of the
parties those are head analogously. Be it mentioned, that the de-facto
complainant and witnesses are same but the accused petitioners have different
roles. Keeping in view the said aspect, these revisional applications are disposed
of separately but by a single judgment.
C.R.R No. 412 of 2012
C.R.A.N. No. 1748 of 2012
Sunil Giria & Anr.
Vs.
The State of West Bengal & Anr.
1.The petitioners herein challenged the legality and validity of the
proceedings of G.R. Case No. 286 of 2005, in which case the police has submitted
charge-sheet in connection with Dum Dum P.S. Case No. 57 dated 17.02.2005.
According to the petitioners, pursuant to the F.I.R. the Investigating
Officer has taken up investigation of the said case and made these petitioners as
accused in the said case. They categorically submitted that their names are not
figured in the F.I.R. The F.I.R. has specifically bears the name of Hanuman Jain,
Laltu Das, Kelo and Narayan and his higher links. The said F.I.R. does not bear
the name of the accused petitioners. At the time of hearing, the learned Counsel
further contended that the alleged incident took place, according to the
complainant, at 18 Shyam Nagar Road, Calcutta - 700 015. The complainant''s
main grievance is such that he was asked to put his signature in a blank paper on 16.02.2005 by the accused persons and it was in the office of one Laltu Das.
The alleged incident occurred at or about 1:00 PM and he has undergone
treatment at Medical College and Hospital on the same day at or about 7:45 PM.
The said injury reports speaks that the incident occurred at or about 5:00 PM on
16.02.2005 inside the houses bearing No. 6 or 7 Jessore Road. At the time of
mentioning the history of injury, the patient stated that he was assaulted by
Hanuman Jain with 4/5 persons. Significantly enough, the complainant did not
specifically say who are the assailants. Although in the F.I.R. he has mentioned
four names. These petitioners'' name was neither in the F.I.R. nor in the injury
report.
The learned Public Prosecutor produced the case diary which speaks
that police interrogated one Nirmal Mondal and Jit Singh. Those witnesses did
not utter any single word regarding the alleged commission of offence. Rohit
Gupta, the close relation of the complainant, corroborated the contents of the
F.I.R. and at that time he has disclosed the names of the present accused
petitioners. Basanta Lal Gupta i.e., the complainant in his first statement
recorded on 18.02.2005 did not utter the names of the present accused
petitioners. He was again examined nearly after one year and nine months and
this time he entangled the names of the present accused petitioner. The learned
Public Prosecutor also expressed his astonishment regarding further examination
of the de facto complainant long after one year and nine months by the
Investigating Officer.
Since the names of the present accused petitioner do not figure either in
the F.I.R. or in the injury report and the record does not speak of any involvement of these accused petitioners and also in the first statement of the
victim/complainant under Section 161 Cr.P.C., this court is of the view that it
will be a sheer abuse of process of the court and accordingly, there is no reason
to allow the proceedings to continue in respect of these accused petitioners i.e.
Sunil Giria, Son of late Sumermal Giria and Lalit Kumar Giria, Son of
Hanumanlal Giria, in connection with G.R. Case No. 286 of 2005. Therefore, this
revisional application C.R.R. No. 412 of 2012 stands allowed and C.R.A.N. No.
1748 of 2012 is also disposed of.
C.R.R. No. 2976 of 2011
Bimala Devi Giria & Ors.
Vs.
The State of West Bengal. & Anr.
The petitioners herein challenged the legality and validity of the
proceedings of G.R. Case No. 286 of 2005, in which case the police has submitted
charge-sheet in connection with Dum Dum P.S. Case No. 57 dated 17.02.2005.
According to the petitioners, pursuant to the F.I.R. the Investigating
Officer has taken up investigation of the said case and made these petitioners as
accused in the said case. They categorically submitted that their names are not
figured in the F.I.R. The F.I.R. specifically bears the name of Hanuman Jain,
Laltu Das, Kelo and Narayan and his higher links. The said F.I.R. does not bear
the name of the present accused petitioners. At the time of hearing, the learned
Counsel further contended that the alleged incident took place, according to the
complainant, at 18 Shyam Nagar Road, Calcutta - 700 015. The complainant''s
main grievance is such that he was asked to put his signature in a blank paper on 16.02.2005 by the accused persons and it was in the office of one Laltu Das.
The alleged incident occurred at or about 1:00 PM and he has undergone
treatment at Medical College and Hospital on the same day at or about 7:45 PM.
The said injury reports speaks that the incident occurred at or about 5:00 PM on
16.02.2005 inside the houses bearing No. 6 or 7 Jessore Road. At the time of
mentioning the history of injury, the patient stated that he was assaulted by
Hanuman Jain with 4/5 persons. Significantly enough, the complainant did not
specifically say who are the assailants. Although in the F.I.R. he has mentioned
four names. These petitioners'' name was neither in the F.I.R. nor in the injury
report.
The learned Public Prosecutor produced the case diary which speaks
that police interrogated one Nirmal Mondal and Jit Singh. Those witnesses did
not utter any single word regarding the alleged commission of offence. Rohit
Gupta, the close relation of the complainant, corroborated the contents of the
F.I.R. and at that time he has disclosed the names of the present accused
petitioners. Basanta Lal Gupta i.e., the complainant in his first statement
recorded on 18.02.2005 did not utter the names of the present accused
petitioners. He was again examined nearly after one year and nine months and
this time he entangled the names of the present accused petitioner. The learned
Public Prosecutor also expressed his astonishment regarding further examination
of the de facto complainant long after one year and nine months by the
Investigating Officer.
Since the names of the present accused petitioner do not figure either in
the F.I.R. or in the injury report and the record does not reflect the involvement of the present petitioners and also in the first statement of the
victim/complainant under Section 161 Cr.P.C. this court is of the view that it will
be a sheer abuse of process of the court and accordingly, there is no reason to
allow the proceedings to continue in respect of these accused petitioners i.e.
Bimala Devi Girai, Wife of Hanumanlal Giria, Saroj Kumar Giria, Son of
Hanumanlal Giria, Prabha Devi Giria, Wife of Lalit Kumar Giria, Anup Kumar
Giria, Son of Hanumanlal Giria, Anuradha Giria, Wife of Sanjay Kumar Giria,
Smt. Bhavna Giria, Wife of Sanjay Kumar Giria, Smt. Harshalata Giria, Wife of
Sunil Kumar Giria, Jagat Kumar Kochhar, Son of Vijay Singh Kochhar, Smt.
Rina Kochhar, Wife of Jagat Kumar Kochhar, Smt. Sangeeta Kochhar, Wife of
Sripal Kochhar, Prabhat Bhutoria, Son of Babulal Bhutoria, in connection with
G.R. Case No. 286 of 2005. Therefore, this revisional application C.R.R. No.
2976 of 2011 stands allowed.
C.R.R. No. 966 of 2012
C.R.A.N. No. 2273 of 2012
Laltu Das & Three Others
Vs.
The State of West Bengal & Anr.
Factual aspects of this case is similar to the cases which has been dealt
in C.R.R. No. 412 of 2012 and C.R.R. No. 2976 of 2011. In those revisional
applications the said accused petitioners did not have any role in the commission
of offence and so the proceedings have been quashed in respect of them. But in
respect of the present accused petitioners picture is quite different. This accused
petitioners are the F.I.R. named and name of the accused petitioner No. 4 has been specifically mentioned in the injury report also. This apart, the alleged
documents which were alleged to have been procured by the accused petitioners
forcibly from the de facto complainant, had been seized by the Investigating
Officer in connection with the present case. Therefore, involvement of these
accused petitioners cannot be ruled out at this stage. Since prima facie case is
there and also charge-sheet has been submitted against these accused
petitioners specifying that the documents were seized from these accused
petitioners, I am of the view that these accused petitioners namely Laltu Das,
Son of Late Ram Prasad Das, Sukumar @ Kelo Makhal, Son of Late Rakhal
Chandra Makhal, Narayan Paul, Son of Biswanath Paul, Hanumanlal Giria @
Hanumanlal Jain, Son of Late Sumermal Jain do not stand on the same footing.
Accordingly, this revisional application C.R.R. No. 966 of 2012 stands
dismissed and C.R.A.N. No. 2273 of 2012 is also disposed of.
Let a copy of this judgment and the L.C.R. be sent to the learned Court
below for information and taking necessary action in accordance with law.
Urgent certified photocopy of this Judgment and order, if applied for, be
supplied to the parties upon compliance with all requisite formalities.