Sudin Jha @ Sudhin Jha vs The State Of West Bengal & Anr
2023 Latest Caselaw 2119 Cal

                    IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
                 CRIMINAL REVISIONAL JURISDICTION
                             APPELLATE SIDE

The Hon'ble JUSTICE BIBEK CHAUDHURI


                              C.R.R 452 of 2023

                         Sudin Jha @ Sudhin Jha
                                    Vs.
                      The State of West Bengal & Anr.

For the Petitioner:              Mr. Koustav Bagchi, Adv.,
                                 Mr. Debayan Ghosh, Adv.,
                                 Ms. Priti Kar, Adv.

For the State:                   Mr. Saswata Gopal Mukherjee, Ld. P.P.,
                                 Mr. Madhusudan Sur, Adv.,
                                 Mr. Manoranjan Mahata, Adv.

Heard on: 28.02.2023, 02 & 15.03.2023
Judgment on: 30.03.2023.

BIBEK CHAUDHURI, J. : -
1.

The petitioner has been arraigned as an accused in connection with

GR Case No.2443 of 2017 arising out of Duttapukar Police Station Case

No.660 of 2017 dated 6th August, 2017 under Sections

384/468/471/419/420/120B/170 of the IPC and charge-sheet No.882 of

2021 dated 1st October, 2021 under Sections

417/419/420/468/471/120B of the IPC as well as supplementary

charge-sheet No.882/A of 2021 dated 15th December, 2021 under Section

119/166/109/418/420/120B of the IPC presently pending before the

learned Chief Judicial Magistrate at Barasat, North 24 Parganas.

2. By invoking inherent jurisdiction of this Court the petitioner has

prayed for quashing of the charge-sheet and supplementary charge-sheet

filed against him in connection with the above mentioned case.

3. The petitioner is an Inspector of Police attached to DEB, Cooch

Behar. On the basis of a written complaint submitted by the opposite

party No.2, Duttapukur P.S Case No.660 of 2017 dated 6th August, 2017

was registered against six accused persons. Subsequently, in the

supplementary charge-sheet the petitioner has been booked as an

accused in the above mentioned case.

4. It is alleged by the petitioner that the opposite party No.2 lodged a

written complaint stating, inter alia, that sometimes in the month of

January, 2017 he visited Khardah Police Station and met the present

petitioner who was posted as Sub-inspector of Police in the said police

station and complained of matrimonial dispute between his daughter Piu

Singha Roy and her husband. The petitioner then referred to him to one

Koushik Das @ Rajdeep Das @ Tapas Das describing him as an eminent

Advocate of the High Court at Calcutta as well as the Supreme Court of

India. Then the defacto complainant had met with said Koushik Das who

introduced himself as a Public Prosecutor of the High Court at Calcutta in

his official chamber. The defacto complainant had also met with other

accused persons. The principal accused, namely, Koushik Das and his

associates took Rs.62 lakhs both in cash and cheque from the defacto

complainant on the pretext that the said Koushik Das would settle the

matrimonial dispute of the daughter of the defacto complainant.

5. The petitioner has been implicated in the supplementary charge-

sheet filed by the investigating agency under Sections

119/166/109/418/420/120B of the IPC. It is further stated by the

petitioner that the opposite party No.2 also preferred a complaint case

being C. Case No.475 of 2017 against the said Koushik Das @ Rajdeep

Das @ Tapas Das. In course of trial the opposite party No.2/defacto

complainant submitted his evidence on affidavit stating, inter alia, that he

had friendly relationship with the said Koushik Das and he had given a

loan and case settlement money amounting to Rs.62 lakhs to the said

Koushik Das.

6. Therefore, it is contended by the petitioner that the defacto

complainant paid a sum of Rs.62 lakhs to Koushik Das towards loan as

he had friendly relationship with the said principal accused.

7. It is submitted by Mr. Koustav Bagchi, learned Advocate for the

petitioner that even if the statement of the present petitioner as contained

in the FIR is held to be correct then his role is confined to inform the

defacto complainant that Koushik Das is an Advocate of the High Court

and the Supreme Court and he would be able to settle the matrimonial

dispute of his daughter. Apart from the above statement there is nothing

in the complaint filed by the defacto complainant. The learned Advocate

for the petitioner has raised a question as to why a police personnel can

be implicated as an accused if he states the name of a person as an

eminent Advocate of the High Court and the Supreme Court of India. It is

further submitted by the learned Advocate for the petitioner that the

Investigating Officer failed to collect any evidence that there was some

criminal conspiracy between the petitioner and the said principal accused

Koushik Das or that the petitioner himself introduced Koushik Das with

the defacto complainant or that any amount of money taken by the said

Koushik Das or other accused persons was transmitted through the

petitioner. Therefore, Mr. Bagchi submits that the ingredients of offence

under Sections 119/166/109/418/420/120B of the IPC is clearly absent

as against the present petitioner. Accordingly, the petitioner has prayed

for quashment of the criminal proceeding instituted against him.

8. Learned P.P-in-Charge, on the other hand, has produced the case

diary. From the case diary it is ascertained that the petitioner introduced

the complainant to accused Koushik Das saying that he is an eminent

Advocate. He also referred to the statement of the witnesses recorded

under Section 161 of the Cr.P.C who corroborated that the petitioner

referred the defacto complainant to Koushik Das. During investigation

statement of the daughter of the defacto complainant and one Biplab

Mukherjee were recorded. Both of them stated that the petitioner told the

name of Koushik Das to the defacto complainant who would be able to

settle the matrimonial dispute of his daughter.

9. I have carefully perused the case diary. It is found from the case

diary that the petitioner introduced the defacto complainant with the

principal accused Koushik Das and told that he is an eminent Advocate of

Calcutta High Court and the Supreme Court and he would be able to

settle the matrimonial dispute of the daughter of the defacto complainant.

Except this allegation, there is no other material against this petitioner in

the case diary.

10. Section 119 is a penal provision committed by a public servant

concealing design to commit offence which it is his duty to prevent. In the

instant case the accused Koushik Das and his associates committed

cheating by personation and misappropriated huge amount of money

from the defacto complainant. There is absolutely no evidence that the

petitioner had the knowledge that the principal accused and his

associates would commit cheating by personation and induced the defacto

complainant to part with huge amount of money. There is also no prima

facie evidence that the petitioner being a public servant intended to cause

injury to the defacto complainant disobeying the law. The materials from

the case diary does not reflect any offence under Section 109 of the IPC.

In order to prove abatement under Section 109 of IPC, it is incumbent

upon the prosecution to prove that the petitioner instigates the defacto

complainant to part with money, or they engaged with other accused

persons in any conspiracy for inducing the defacto complainant to part

with huge sum of money in favour of Koushik Das and others or that he

intentionally aided, by any act or illegal omission, the doing of that act.

There is absolutely no evidence collected by the prosecution in course of

investigation to prove the ingredients of offence under Sections

119/166/109 of the IPC. The petitioner cannot be implicated in the

offence under Section 418/420 of the IPC.

11. In view of the above discussion, I do not find any material against

the petitioner so that he may be directed to face trial.

12. In view of the above discussion further proceedings in connection

with GR Case No.2443 of 2017 be quashed.

13. The learned Chief Judicial Magistrate at Barasat is directed to

discharge the petitioner from the case as there is no sufficient ground for

proceeding against the petitioner.

14. The instant revision is, thus, allowed on contest.

(Bibek Chaudhuri, J.)