Sri Ayan Basu vs The State Of West Bengal & Ors
2021 Latest Caselaw 164 Cal

13th January,
 2021
 (AK)
 1

                                    W.P.A 9694 of 2020

                                        Sri Ayan Basu
                                              Vs.
                                 The State of West Bengal & Ors.


                             Mr. Debasis Kar
                             Mr. Subhajit Chowdhury
                             Mr. Husen Mustafi
                                                ...For the Petitioner.

                             Mr. Sk. Md. Galib
                                                        ...For the State.



                      The petitioner's grievance is that, on the complaint

                of the petitioner's wife under various provisions including

                Section 498A of the Code of Criminal Procedure, a notice

                was issued under Section 41A of the Criminal Procedure

                Code on the petitioner.

                      The petitioner duly approached the Investigating

                Officer with certain documents, in answer to such notice.

                However, the documents were not considered while filing

                the charge sheet, nor copies of those were sent for the

                purpose of framing charges.

                      Learned counsel for the petitioner argues that the

                petitioner was not furnished with any seizure list nor was

                any statement taken from the petitioner under Section

                161   of   the   Criminal   Procedure    Code,   despite   the

                petitioner having relied on certain documents which were

                produced before the Investigating Officer.
                                   2




        Learned counsel for the petitioner relies on the

judgment reported at 2019 (3) All India Criminal Law

Reporter for the proposition that if an accused files some

documents, a statement should be taken from her/him

under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

        Learned counsel also relies on the judgment of

Shakuntala Vs. Delhi reported at 2007 (1) DMC 793 and

submits that the Investigating Officer cannot withhold

evidence which goes in favour of the accused.

        Learned counsel appearing for the respondent

authorities submits that the investigation has been

completed and charge sheet already filed.

There is no scope for "consideration" of the

documents of the accused for the purpose of filing charge

sheet, since the charge sheet discloses the prosecution

case.

That apart, in the event the petitioner has any

grievance regarding the charge sheet and the preceding

investigation, the petitioner is always at liberty to

approach the appropriate Magistrate's Court for the

purpose of seeking further investigation.

By placing reliance on several provisions of the Code

of Criminal Procedure, in particular Sections 172 and 173

thereof, learned counsel elaborates the scope of charge

sheet and a Case Diary.

By pointing out to the annexures to the writ

petition, learned counsel for the State submits that the

documents produced by the accused, that is the

petitioner, are part of the Case Diary, as reflected at page-

55 of the writ petition.

Since it is open for the petitioner to participate in

the framing of charges and to rely on the petitioner's

documents, it is submitted that the present writ petition

does not lie.

Upon considering the submissions of the parties, at

the outset it can be noticed that the apprehension

expressed by the petitioner is premature in as much as

the petitioner assumes, without basis, that the

documents of the petitioner, which were produced before

the Investigating Officer, would not be taken into

consideration while framing charges.

There is no present reason for such apprehension,

since such documents appear to form a part of the Case

Diary and would, in any event, be available for

consideration by the Magistrate while charges are framed.

Independently of the Case Diary as well, the

petitioner can very well approach the appropriate

authority for producing the petitioner's documents and to

argue on the basis thereof at the stage of framing of

charges.

In such view of the matter, there is no scope for

interference in the present writ petition, as no palpable

mala fides or arbitrariness has been made out by the

petitioner in the filing of the charge sheet so far.

Thus, without going into the merits of the

petitioner's contention on the alleged offence against him,

W.P.A. 9694 of 2020 is disposed of by granting the

petitioner liberty to participate in the process of framing

of charges and to rely on the petitioner's documents, if

any, for the purpose of substantiating his allegations

regarding insufficiency of the charge sheet, in accordance

with law before the appropriate authority.

There will be no order as to costs.

Urgent photostat copies of this order, if applied for,

be given to the parties upon compliance of all requisite

formalities.

(Sabyasachi Bhattacharyya, J.)