Bithi Dutta vs The State Of West Bengal & Anr
2023 Latest Caselaw 3543 Cal

Form J(1)          IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
                      Criminal Revisional Jurisdiction
                                 Appellate Side
Present :
The Hon'ble Justice Bibek Chaudhuri
                          C.R.R. 1605 of 2023
                              Bithi Dutta
                                  Vs.
                    The State of West Bengal & Anr.

For the petitioner        : Mr. Ayan Bhattacharjee, Adv.
                            Mr. Dipanjan Dutta, Adv.
                            Ms. Sudeshna Basu Thakur, Adv.
                            Ms. U. Das, Adv.
For the De-facto
Complainant               : Mr. Arindam Jana, Adv.
                            Mr. Bikram Banerjee, Adv.
                            Mr. Sudipto Dasgupta, Adv.
                            Mr. Arka Nandi, Adv.
                            Mr.S. Sutradhar, Adv.
                            Ms. Shalini Ghosh, Adv.

For the State             : Mr. Avishek Sinha, Adv.

Heard on                  : 18.05.2023.

Judgment On               : 18.05.2023.

Bibek Chaudhuri, J.

The petitioner has approached this Court filing an application under

Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure praying for quashing of a

proceeding being Dum Dum Police Station Case No.28 of 2023 dated 12 th

January, 2023 under Sections 384/467/468/471/506 of the Indian Penal

Code.

It is the allegation made by the complainant against the petitioner

that the petitioner used fake certificate relating to her teachers training

issued in the year 2002 and obtained a contractual employment as Assistant

Teacher in the year 2021 in the educational institution of which the de-facto

complainant is the present Secretary.

It is submitted on behalf of the de-facto complainant/opposite party

that after he became the Secretary, he started taking information about the

academic qualification of the teachers and came to know deriving

information from RTI Act that the National Institute of Management is not

recognized by NCTE and Section 17(4) provides, "If an institution offers any

course or training in teacher education after the coming into force of the

order withdrawing recognition under sub-section (1), or where an institution

offering a course or training in teacher education immediately before the

appointed day fails or neglects to obtain recognition or permission under

this Act, the qualification in teacher education obtained pursuant to such

course or training or after undertaking a course of training in such

institution, shall not be treated as a valid qualification for purposes of

employment under the Central Government, any State Government or

University, or in any school, college or other educational body aided by the

Central Government or any State Government."

Thus, it is the case of the complainant that the petitioner's

qualification from a non-recognized teachers training institute does not

permit her to be appointed as an Assistant Teacher. According to the

complainant this amounts to a deliberate act of forgery.

The learned Advocate on behalf of the petitioner, on the other hand,

submits that the petitioner obtained teachers training from the said institute

which has now been stated to be a non-recognized institute in the year

2001. Section 17(4) of the Code of Criminal Procedure speaks about a cut

off date after which any teacher trained from non-recognized institute will

be treated to be invalid but the opposite party has failed to state the cut off

date when the provision of Section 17(4) has been made mandatory.

It is further submitted by the learned Advocate for the petitioner that

the petitioner has been working as a teacher of the institute since 2002.

For a brief period from 2018 to 2021 she had to resign as teacher from the

said school on her personal ground. Thereafter, she joined the school again

in 2021. During this long period of time, petitioner's academic qualification

and teachers training was not disputed. Moreover, St. Stephen School,

Dum Dum is not an educational institution aided either by Central

Government or by State Government. It is affiliated to CISC, New Delhi.

Affiliation to impart education upon a particular course and Government

aided institution are two different types of educational institutions.

Therefore, it is a disputed question of fact as to whether at all Section 17(4)

is applicable in respect of a private institution or not.

It is also submitted on behalf of the petitioner that the instant

complaint is a retaliatory act on the part of the Secretary of the school.

Therefore, there are lots of disputed facts, which needs to be investigated.

For such investigation, only documentary evidence is required. In order to

prove forgery, this Court has every doubt after going through the

documents submitted by both the parties as to whether custodial

interrogation of the petitioner is necessary under Section 397 of the Code of

Criminal Procedure in exceptional circumstances, even the Court can pass

an order equivalent to an order of bail.

In view of the above discussion, this Court finds that this is a fit case

where investigation should continue but in course of investigation, the

Investigating Officer shall not take any coercive step against the petitioner

except examining her by issuing notice under Section 41A of the Code of

Criminal Procedure or calling upon her to produce documents etc. for the

purpose of the case.

In view of the above order, nothing remains in the instant revision

and, accordingly, the same is disposed of.

(Bibek Chaudhuri, J.)

Mithun De/ A.R. (Ct).

Sl No.06.

D/L.