Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)
Priyanka Ghosh & Ors vs The State Of West Bengal & Anr on 17 January, 2023
17.01.2023
Court No.35
Item No. 63 CRR 799 of 2016
With
D.Hira CRAN 2 of 2017 (Old No. CRAN 596 of 2017)
With
CRAN 4 of 2018 (Old No. CRAN 129 of 2018)
With
CRAN 6 of 2022
Priyanka Ghosh & Ors.
Vs.
The State of West Bengal & Anr.
Mr. Angshuman Chakraborty,
Mr. Shashanka Sekhar Saha.
... for the petitioners
No one is appearing for the opposite party including the State in
spite of service.
Mr. Chakraborty, learned Advocate appears on behalf of the
petitioners and submits that due to the dispute within the family
relating to property matters multifarious cases have been preferred by
both the parties against each other.
The present one is one of those so far as the allegations against
the petitioners in the FIR are concerned. According to Mr. Chakraborty,
those will not constitute any cognizable offence against his clients. He
has further submitted that the FIR had not disclosed any offence at all
by the present petitioner. On all the grounds as narrated above, he has
sought for an appropriate order for the petitioner in this case.
The petitioner has filed this case to challenge the proceedings in
Complaint case No. C-448 of 2015 under Sections 341/323 of the
Indian Penal Code pending in the Court of Judicial Magistrate,
Bidhannagar. It is learnt that the Trial Court has issued 'summons' in
the case on 11th August, 2015.
In this case this Court is invited to exercise power under Section
482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure which empowers a Court with
the inherent power to interfere and make such order as may be
necessary to secure the ends of justice as well as to prevent abuse of
process of any Court.
On consideration of the facts and circumstances of this case and
the materials available in case diary it is found that furtherance of the
trial in this case will amount to be only an abuse of the Court's process
and it is necessary for the ends of justice that this Court interferes in
the matter.
It is noteworthy that the alleged offence would at best subject the
petitioner/accused person to a conviction for a period of one (1)) year,
whereas seven (7) years have already elapsed from the date of initiation
of the criminal proceedings. Taking into account the submissions made
on behalf of the petitioner, of long standing property related dispute
between two relatives here, there reamins no scope or any doubt to find
grudge and vengeance to be the reason for the complainant to knock
the doors of criminal justice system. The same is, however,
deprecatory. In a recent judgment of Deepak Gaba & Ors. vs. State of
Uttar Pradesh & Anr. reported in 2023 SCC Online SC 3, the
findings of Hon'ble Supreme Court may be profitably noted here that,
"25. We must also observe that the High Court, while dismissing
the petition filed under Section 482 of the Code, failed to take due
notice that criminal proceedings should not be allowed to be initiated
when it is manifest that these proceedings have been initiated with
ulterior motive of wreaking vengeance and with a view to spite the
opposite side due to private or personal grudge. Allegations in the
complaint and the pre-summoning evidence on record, when taken on
the face value and accepted in entirety, do not constitute the offence
alleged. The inherent powers of the court can and should be exercised
in such circumstances. When the allegations in the complaint are so
absurd or inherently improbable, on the basis of which no prudent
person can ever reach a just conclusion that there is sufficient wrong
for proceeding against the accused, summons should not be issued."
The principles decided therein squarely apply in this case.
Considering all, I am of the view that the allegations made in the
complaint against the petitioner would not constitute to be a cognizable
case against her and proceeding in trial in this case would amount to
abuse of the process of the Court.
Accordingly, following the settled principles of law the trial is not
to be proceeded and by exercising of the extraordinary jurisdiction of
this Court, the prayer of the petitioner in this case is allowed.
Proceedings in Complaint case No. C.448 of 2015 under Sections
341/323 of the Indian Penal Code is quashed and set aside.
Accordingly, CRR 799 of 2016 is disposed of.
All pending applications, if any, are consequently disposed of.
Urgent photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for, be
given to the parties, upon compliance of necessary formalities.
(Rai Chattopadhyay, J.)
