Sankar Biswas & Ors vs State Of West Bengal & Anr
2022 Latest Caselaw 2881 Cal

17.05. 2022 item No.1 n.b.

ct. no. 34 CRR 2615 of 2017 + IA No. CRAN 13 of 2022

Sankar Biswas & Ors.

Vs.

State of West Bengal & Anr.

Mr. Ayan Bhattacherjee, Mr. Sanjay Kumar Baid, .....for the Petitioners Mr. Madhusudan Sur, Mr. Dipanka Paramanick, .....for the State.

Mr. Amitabha Ghosh, .... For the opposite party no.2 The present revisional application has been preferred

challenging Madhyamgram Police Station case no.189 of 2017

dated April 11, 2017 under Sections 323/ 384/406/ 423/

467/468/ 420/120B of the Indian Penal Code.

Mr. Bhattacharjee, learned advocate appearing for the

petitioners submits that the allegations made in the application

under Section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure prima facie,

fails to make out any offence so far as the present petitioners are

concerned. It has been submitted that a frustrated unsuccessful

litigant before the Civil Court has approached the Criminal Court

and the Criminal Investigation, which has commenced, is for the

purposes of throttling the present petitioners. Additionally, it has

also been submitted that the charges of cheating and forgery are

not made out and if the mala fide investigation are allowed to

continue then the same is bound to cause abuse of the process of

the Court.

Mr. Bhattacharjee, learned advocate further submits that

the investigation commenced on an application under Section

156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure wherein the guidelines set

out by the Hon'ble Supreme Court was not followed.

Mr. Ghosh, learned advocate appearing for the private

opposite party opposes such contention and submits that civil case

has nothing to do with the criminal case.

Learned advocate for the opposite party further submits

that apart from the offences of forgery and cheating, it would be

palpable that there are allegations regarding the withholding of

personal property relating to the complainant which were being

investigated into by the police authorities and at the relevant point

of time, the petitioners being accused approached this court and

obtained an interim order of stay, thereby, preventing the

investigation of the case to continue for collection of relevant

materials for arriving at a finding.

Mr. Sur, learned advocate appearing for the State

produced the Case Diary and draws the attention of this Court to

the statement of witness under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal

Procedure.

Learned advocate for the State further submits that there

were initial seizures and as the petitioners were occupying a

dominant position, the investigation had to be slow although

collection of material continued. The interim order passed by this

Court deterred the Investigating Agency to effectively collect the

materials.

I have perused the Case Diary as also the materials which

are appearing therein and the materials which have already been

collected by the Investigating Agency which, prima facie, make out

a case for investigation, whether the same would make out an

offence after the investigation is concluded is absolutely at the end

of the investigation to be analysed. The interference at this stage

when the collection of materials are in progress is unwarranted. So

far as the issue raised by Mr. Bhattacharjee, learned advocate

regarding non-compliance of the Judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme

Court in Priyanka Srivastava's case, I am of the opinion that the

same would have no retrospective effect in the progress of the

investigational proceedings as the same would result in denying the

materials which have been collected by the Investigating Agency.

After balancing the materials collected by the Investigating Agency

and the non-filing of the affidavit which are for ascertainment of

truth of allegations, I am of the opinion that the same is in the

nature of curable irregularity. As stated above, the nature of the

materials so collected do not call for any interference of this Court,

as such, the revisional application being CRR 2615 of 2017 is

dismissed.

All pending connected applications, if any, are

consequently disposed of.

Interim order, if any, is hereby vacated with a direction

that since the interim order was continuing since the year August,

2017 the Investigating Agency would carry on their investigation

including the factum of service of notice under Section 41A of the

Code of Criminal procedure if required, effect search and seizure,

but will not arrest the petitioners till June 28, 2022 within which

time the petitioners are granted liberty to approach the Court of

appropriate jurisdiction for exhausting their remedies available in

law.

All parties shall act on the server copy of this order duly

downloaded from the official website of this Court.

( Tirthankar Ghosh, J.)