Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)
Ranjan Kumar Nayek vs State Of West Bengal & Anr on 30 March, 2023
30.03.2023
Court No.35
Item No. 27 CRR 3326 of 2016
With
CRAN 6 of 2017 (Old No: CRAN 4974 of 2014)
With
CRAN 7 of 2017 (Old No: CRAN 5332 of 2017)
With
CRAN 11 of 2020 (Old No: CRAN 599 of 2020
Ranjan Kumar Nayek
Vs.
State of West Bengal & Anr.
Mr. Ranadeb Sengupta,
Mr. Anindya Ghosh,
Mr. Apurba Ghosh.
... For the petitioners
Mr. Saryati Datta
... for the State
In this revision the petitioner has prayed for quashing of the
criminal proceedings against him, i.e, Howrah G.R Police Station Case
No. 146/16 dated 28.07.2016 under Section 3 (1) (x) of the Scheduled
Casts and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989.
By referring to certain documents, Ld. Advocate on behalf of the
petitioner Mr. Ranadeb Sengupta has submitted that this case is a
result of malice and vengeance by the de facto complainant against the
petitioner and that his client has been victimized by this way. It is
submitted by referring to the general diary entry by the petitioner dated
28.06.2016 that the same was lodged by the petitioner to complain
about manhandling and assault by the de facto complainant, of him, as
he protested the late attendance of the de facto complainant on the
particular day. During the course of argument Mr. Sengupta has
2
submitted that the de facto complainant is a habitual late comer and
insincere employee. He has further referred to the complaint of the
petitioner lodged before the Sr. Superintendent, R.M.S West Bengal
Division, Howrah dated 28.06.2016, alleging against the de facto
complainant of the self same mischief. Finally, Mr. Sengupta has
referred to the FIR lodged by the Superintendent, R.M.S West Bengal
Division, Howrah, alleging the said incident of 28.06.2016, against the
de facto complainant.
It has also been submitted that before lodging of the FIR as above
the preliminary enquiry was conducted pursuant to the complaint of
the present petitioner, in which prima facie material as to the guilt of
the de facto complainant was found and a formal departmental enquiry
was recommended. It is submitted that pursuant to the same, the de
facto complainant was immediately suspended.
Thus, it is submitted that, on the basis of all the prelude of
lodging of the present FIR against the petitioner, it can be well
construed that the criminal proceeding as this one is the result of
wreaking vengeance against the petitioner by the de facto complainant
and is not maintainable.
Mr. Datta appearing for the State has however raised strong
objections to the contention and prayer of the petitioner, in this case.
He has submitted the case diary in Court. He relies on some of the
materials there from, to submit and point out to the Court that those,
particularly witnesses statement, clearly shows as to how the de facto
3
complainant has been humiliated within public view, for the sole reason
of his belonging to a schedule caste and by utterance of abusive remark
naming his caste. It is submitted further that so far as the allegations
against the petitioner in this case are concerned vide FIR dated
22.07.2016
, a cognizable offence under the aforestated provision of law
has already been made out and thus the trial is to be proceeded to proof
the said charges against the present petitioner. Mr. Datta has urged
that this revision would not have any merit and may be dismissed.
Section 3 (1) (x) of the Scheduled Casts and Scheduled Tribes
(Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, is as follows:-
"Section 3(1)(x)
(x) intentionally insults or intimidates with intent to humiliate a
member of a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe in any place
within public view;"
Presence of the ingredients of offence as above, in the FIR and the
other materials available would have been sufficient to maintain a
criminal proceeding against the petitioner, had not there been found
any indication and/or relevant material to show that the criminal
proceeding is only the result of malice and vindictive attitude of the de
facto complainant exposed against the accused person/petitioner in
this case. The proposition laid down in the judgment of Bhajanlal's case
reported in 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335 by the Hon'ble Supreme Court may
be referred to in this regard.
In this case it has been elaborated sufficiently that since for one
month prior to lodging of this FIR, the parties were not at peace and
alleging manhandling and assault against the de facto complainant, the
present petitioner filed complaint, preliminary enquiry was held as well
as criminal proceeding was lodged. The petitioner as well as the
Railways department, both have moved against the de facto
complainant, departmentally and also by lodging FIR against him.
Furthermore it is noticed that the present FIR has not sufficiently
explained the reason for delay in filing the same with respect to the
occurrence, which happened on 28.06.2016.
The de facto complainant has also brought a fact on record in the
FIR, that his allegation against the present petitioner vide written
complaint dated 14.03.2016 has not been ever acted upon by the
Railway Authorities. The petitioner has however denied existence of any
such complaint whereas the State has also not been able to throw any
light upon the same. Excepting the averment in the FIR regarding
existence of the written complaint dated 14.03.2016 alleged to have
remained unattended, no other corroborating material has been relied
on by the de facto complainant, like any reminder later or
correspondence any furtherance thereto etc. Hence, its existence is
doubtful.
Under such circumstances, even conceding to the submissions on
behalf of the State, that the prima facie material exist against the
petitioner in this case, one cannot lose sight of the fact that the de facto
complainant was not in a good humor with his department and has
faced punitive measures regarding his misdemeanor, previously. This
provides sufficient reason to come to a conclusion that the present case,
that too lodged on behalf of the concerned employee by the All India
Schedule Caste/Tribe and Backward Classes employee Co-ordination
Counsel, is a result of grudge, malice and vengeance of the said
employee/opposite party No.2. Such FIR which is malicious and
revengeful, has been deprecated to have any force to maintain a
proceeding against the accused person. If so, the proceeding would
amount to gross abuse of the process of Court, which is however to be
prevented by this Court in exercise of its inherent power under Section
482 Cr.P.C, 1973.
Accordingly facts and circumstances of this case being assets to
the touch stone of the settled principles of law would lead to the finding
that the present proceeding if allowed to the continued would amount to
gross abuse of the process of Court as well as law. On perusal of the
FIR and the other materials, it can also be found that the allegation
against the petitioner is vague and non specific in nature. It does not
project any prima facie cognizable offence against the petitioner as
alleged in the said FIR, which has been lodged after about one month of
the unexplained delay, from the date of alleged occurrence. For all these
reasons this revision succeeds.
CRR 3326 of 2016 is allowed. G.R Police Station Case No. 146/16
dated 28.07.2016 under Section 3 (1) (x) of the Scheduled Casts and
Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, (pursuant to
G.R.P G.R No. 193/2016) is pending before the Ld. Chief Judicial
Magistrate at Howrah, be quashed and set aside.
Case diary be returned.
Connected applications being CRAN 6 of 2017 (Old No: CRAN 4974
of 2017) with CRAN 7 of 2017 (Old NO: CRAN 5332 of 2017) with CRAN
11 of 2020 (Old No: CRAN 599 of 2020) are disposed of.
Urgent certified website copies of this order, if applied for, be
supplied to the parties subject to compliance with all the requisite
formalities.
(Rai Chattopadhyay, J.)
