Tuesday, 19, May, 2026
 
 
 
Expand O P Jindal Global University
 
  
  
 
 
 

Shivajee Mukhopadhyay vs The State Of West Bengal & Anr
2022 Latest Caselaw 7844 Cal

Citation : 2022 Latest Caselaw 7844 Cal
Judgement Date : 28 November, 2022

Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)
Shivajee Mukhopadhyay vs The State Of West Bengal & Anr on 28 November, 2022
28.11.2022

Court No.35
Item No. 3                             CRR 446 of 2015
                                             With
D.Hira                    CRAN 4 of 2017 (Old No. CRAN 3986 of 2017)

                                     Shivajee Mukhopadhyay
                                                Vs.
                                  The State of West Bengal & Anr.


              Mr. Sourav Chatterjee,
              Ms. Namrata Chatterjee.
                                                     ... For the petitioner

              Mr. Narayan Prasad Agarwala,
              Mr. Pratick Bose.
                                                     ... for the State


                    Petitioner's grievance is relating to the proceedings initiated
              against him pursuant to the FIR being Barrabazar Police Station Case
              No. 477 of 2013 dated 18th September, 2013 under Sections
              420/467/468/471/477A/409/419/120B of the Indian Penal Code.


                    Mr. Agarwala, learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the State
              has raised vehement objection to the prayer of the petitioner and has
              sought for presence of the defacto-complaints in view of the nature of
              the offence as alleged in this case.


                    After perusing the record, it transpires that in spite of service on
              several occasions, the opposite parties other than the State remained
              not present in Court. Court's order would clearly reveal that opposite
              parties, excepting State, have lost interest in contesting this case.
              Under such circumstances, it is not found prudent to wait for the
              opposite parties excepting the State, to allow them to find sometime to
              make their appearance in Court.


                    It is very pertinent to mention that the matter relates to the year
              2015, hence without wasting any further time seeking appearance of
              the opposite parties who are apparently not interested any more in
              contesting the matter, the matter is taken up for disposal on merit.
                                   2




      Petitioner's grievance is basically on two grounds.      Firstly, that
the instant case has been initiated by dint of an order of learned
Magistrate passed under Section 156 (3) of the Code of Criminal
Procedure without however, complying the mandatory pre-conditions as
envisaged under law for passing such an order. Sections 154(1), 154(3)
of the Code of Criminal Procedure have been referred to, in this regard.


      In support, the following two judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme
Court are also referred to and it is submitted that the Hon'ble Supreme
Court has held that compliance with the statutory pre-conditions is
mandatory. Hence, without the same the present case by the opposite
party against the petitioner started under Section 156 (3) of the Code of
Criminal Procedure shall be dehors the settled law.
      i.       Babu Venkatesh & Ors. vs. State of Karnataka & Anr.
               reported in (2022) 5 Supreme Court Cases 639.
      ii.      Priyanka Srivastava & Anr. vs. State of Uttar Pradesh
               & Ors. reported in (2015) 6 Supreme Court Cases 287.


      Other point envisaged is of the complainant's having and availing
the alternative remedial measure as provided under law, who has
espoused his cause before an Arbitration and the petitioner has
challenged the Award passed by the Arbitrator on 9th July, 2012, in an
appeal.


      It is submitted that the said appeal is still pending.


      Excepting the above two judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court
the following two orders of the Coordinate Bench of this Court has also
been referred to, when on the similar facts and circumstances, the
proceedings initiated against the petitioner has been quashed by this
Court, i.e.,
      i.       Order dated 05.07.2010 in CRR 2826 of 2009
      ii.      Order dated 22.02.2013 in CRR 2716 of 2010


      Fact remains that the opposite party no. 2 filed the complaint in
                                        3




the Trial Court alleging the facts inter alia, that the petitioner/accused
person is the trader who has been entrusted by the complainant to do
trade in market, for him.       Allegation against him is of unauthorized
transaction of complaint's share and negligent service given, to award
him wrongful gain and sufferance of prejudice and wrongful loss by the
complaint.


      The Trial Court by dint of its order dated 22nd August, 2013
directed the police authorities to register a case and initiate the
investigation.


      However,     record    reveals       before   initiation   of   the   criminal
proceeding the complainant/opposite party has already undertaken
recourse to the arbitration proceedings suggesting therefrom availability
of the alternative remedy for him as well as the case to be civil in
nature. So far as the ingredients of the alleged offence and availability
of those against the petitioner is concerned in this case, considering the
complaint and the other materials available in this case, I am
constrained to find that the same do not appear to be present against
the petitioner in this case.


      According to the governing regulations, due procedure had been
initiated against the petitioner and the litigation is still continuing. The
various essential ingredients, criminality or criminal intent is found
absent in this case, on his part.             Other statutory remedies being
available    against   the   petitioner     and     being   availed   of,   criminal
proceedings, appear to be an abuse of the process of law.


      No loss important is to mention that no material is available on
record to show compliance of Section 154(1) or (3) of the Code of
Criminal Procedure by the complaint.                Hence, his action is also in
defiance of the law settled in this regard by the Hon'ble Supreme Court,
in the two judgments mentioned above.


      Considering the materials, facts and also discussions as above, I
am inclined to find that the proceedings as envisaged against the
                                    4




present petitioner being Barrabazar Police Station Case No. 477 of 2013
dated        18th       September,        2013        under        Sections
420/467/468/471

/477A/409/419/120B of the Indian Penal Code and all subsequent actions of the prosecution since thereafter shall not be maintainable and would be liable to be quashed and set aside.

Hence, the criminal revision being CRR 446 of 2015 is allowed. All the proceedings/further proceedings in connection with Barrabazar Police Station Case No. 477 of 2013 dated 18th September, 2013 under Sections 420/467/468/471/477A/409/419/120B of the Indian Penal Code are quashed and set aside.

All pending applications, if any, are consequently disposed of.

All parties shall act on the server copies of this order duly downloaded from the official website of this Court.

(Rai Chattopadhyay, J.)

 
Download the LatestLaws.com Mobile App
 
 
Latestlaws Newsletter
 

Publish Your Article

 

Campus Ambassador

 

Media Partner

 

Campus Buzz

 

LatestLaws Guest Court Correspondent

LatestLaws Guest Court Correspondent Apply Now!
 

LatestLaws.com presents: Lexidem Offline Internship Program, 2026

 

LatestLaws.com presents 'Lexidem Online Internship, 2026', Apply Now!

 
 

LatestLaws Partner Event : IJJ

 

LatestLaws Partner Event : MAIMS

 
 
Latestlaws Newsletter