Amit Kumar Ghosh vs State Of West Bengal & Ors
2021 Latest Caselaw 3636 Cal

   11                           WPA No.5918 of 2021
07.07.2021
                                (VIA VIDEO CONFERENCE)
   KC
                                    Amit Kumar Ghosh
                                           Vs.
                                State of West Bengal & Ors.

             Mr. Suman Sengupta
             Mr. Sumitava Chakraborty.
                  ... for the petitioner.

             Mr. Mahendra Prasad Gupta.
                  ... for the respondent.

Mr. Sk. Md. Galib Ms. Subhra Nag.

... for the State.

The petitioner complains of police inaction.

                        State     and     the   private   respondents    are

             represented.

Learned advocate for the petitioner submits that,

the complaint dated January 27, 2021 made by the petitioner

discloses commission of cognizable offences. He relies upon a

judgment dated August 5, 2016 passed in W.P. No. 8785 (W)

of 2016 (Dum Dum Ramkrishna & Vivekananda Deva

Pratisthan & Anr. Vs. The State of West Bengal & Ors.)

and submits that, when the complaint discloses commission of

cognizable offences, it is the bounden duty of the police to

register the same as a First Information Report (FIR) and

commence investigation thereon. At the very least he submits

that an inquiry should be conducted by the police and on

completion of such inquiry, if the police comes across any

materials disclosing commission of cognizable offence, the

complaint ought to be registered as FIR.

Learned advocate appearing for the State submits

that, the police on receipt of the complaint of the petitioner

conducted an inquiry. On inquiry, the police learnt that the

petitioner is a guarantor in respect of a loan taken by the

private respondent from a cooperative bank, which is

presently under liquidation. The revival committee of such

cooperative bank issued a demand notice upon the private

respondent with a copy to the petitioner herein as the

guarantor. The petitioner as the guarantor is now complaining

that since the private respondent did not repay the loan, such

act of the private respondent amounts to commission of

cognizable offence and that the police should lodge the

complaint as FIR and commence investigation thereon. He

submits that, the inquiry made by the police did not throw up

any material to suggest commission of any cognizable offence

for the police to register the complaint of the petitioner as

FIR. He submits that, the disputes between the private

parties are essentially civil in nature. It relates to a loan

transaction. It is for the petitioner to raise the issues before

the appropriate forum.

In the facts of the present case, the petitioner

stood as a guarantor in respect of a loan taken by the private

respondent from the cooperative bank. The cooperative bank

is under liquidation. The revival committee of the cooperative

bank issued a notice to the private respondent demanding

repayment of the loan with a copy of such notice being marked

to the petitioner herein. As noted above, the petitioner is the

guarantor of the loan. The revival committee is entitled to

proceed against the petitioner as the guarantor of the loan.

The transaction between the cooperative bank and the private

respondent and the petitioner herein is one of lender

(cooperative bank), borrower (private respondent) and

guarantor (the writ petitioner). In such scheme, particularly

when the police conducted an inquiry and did not find

existence of any cognizable offence for the police to take

cognizance of the complaint to the petitioner and proceed

thereon, it cannot be said that police are guilty of inaction.

Dum Dum Ramkrishna & Vivekananda Deva Pratisthan (supra) is

of the view that where the police on the conduct of a

preliminary inquiry is of the view that there is offence

committed, which is cognizable, should register the complaint

with a FIR. The facts of the present case are different. As

noted above, inquiry conducted by the police do not establish

commission of cognizable offence.

As a writ Court, dealing with a writ petition

complaining of police inaction, the Writ Court is to find out

whether or not police exercised their powers in accordance

with law or not. In the facts of the present case, the police

conducted a preliminary inquiry as noted above. There is no

further material on record to suggest that the view taken by

the police is perverse.

In such circumstances, I am not in a position to

intervene in the present writ petition.

W.P.A. 5918 of 2021 is dismissed without any

order as to costs.

(Debangsu Basak, J.)