Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)
Rajiv Kumar Sing Alias Chotu Sing vs The State Of West Bengal on 6 September, 2023
1
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
Criminal Revisional Jurisdiction
Present: - Hon'ble Mr. Justice Subhendu Samanta.
C.R.R. No. - 59 of 2018
With
IA No. CRAN 9 of 2022
+
CRAN 10 of 2023
IN THE MATTER OF
Rajiv Kumar Sing alias Chotu Sing .
Vs.
The State of West Bengal
For the Petitioners : Mr. Rajdeep Mazumder Adv.,
Mr. Moyukh Mukherjee, Adv.,
Mr. Pritam Roy, Adv.,
Mr. Abhijit Singh, Adv.,
Mr. Sarthak Mondal, Adv.
For the State : Mr. Narayan Prasad Agarwala, Adv.,
Mr. Pratick Bose, Adv.
Judgment on : 06.09.2023
Subhendu Samanta, J.
This Criminal Revision u/s 482 of the Code of Criminal
Procedure for quashing of a proceeding of being ACGR No.
10142 of 2012 arising out of Pragati Maydan Police Station
Case No. 214 dated 23.08.2012 u/s 306/120B IPC now
pending before the Court of Learned Additional Judicial
Magistrate Alipur.
The brief fact of the case is that the opposite party No. 2
has lodged a written complaint on 23rd August 2012 with the
Officer-In- Charge Pragati Maydan Police Station Calcutta.
Contending inter alia that her husband Jitendralal Banerjee
was found hanging in her son's bed room at around 03:30 p.m.
on 22nd August 2012. Her husband was rushed to Colombia
Asia Hospital and was declared dead. It is the specific
allegation by the de-facto complainant that the present
petitioner along with other 04 persons since last few days had
been continuously harassing, threatening and instigating her
husband in public and person as well over telephone which
resulted in such drastic acts. She came to know about the
incident from her husband and found her husband since last
few days that he was under several mental trauma. On the
basis of the said petition of complaint the Pragati Maydan P.S.
Case No. 10142 dated 23.08.2012 u/s 306/120B IPC was
started and police took up the investigation. The instant
criminal revision has been preferred by the present petitioner
for quashing the entire criminal proceedings.
Learned Advocate for the petitioner submits that the
present petitioner is completely innocent and in no way
connected to the commission of offence as alleged in the FIR.
The instant proceeding is palpably frivolous and was initiated
only with a view to harass and intimidated the petitioner
herein. The opposite party No. 2 has initiated the proceeding
on the basis of concocted story and the FIR suffers from
intrinsic hallows. It is the argument of the Learned Advocate
for the petitioner that the instant proceeding is manifestly
attended with mala fide and the same is instituted in order to
spite the present petitioner maliciously.
Learned Advocate for the petitioner further argued that
the offence punishable u/s 306 IPC regarding the abatement of
suicide is missing in the present FIR. He cited the view of the
Hon'ble Supreme Court passed in State of Kerala and Ors.
Vs. S. Unikrishnan Naiar and Ors., (2015) 9 SCC 639. He
argued that in the case of Unikrishnan the Hon'ble Supreme
Court has quashed an FIR registered u/s 306 IPC with some of
observations. He submits that the instant criminal revision is
liable to be allowed by quashing Criminal Proceeding registered
against him.
Learned Advocate for the state submits that after
intimation of such FIR the Pragati Maydan P.S Case No. 214 of
2012 dated 23.08.2012 u/s 306/120B IPC was initiated the
police took up the investigation. During the course of
investigation police has examined the available witnesses and
recorded their statements u/s 161 Cr.P.C. after conclusion of
investigation the police is of opinion the prima facie case
against the present petitioner has been sufficiently made out
and submitted a charge sheet. He argued that there are
sufficient materials against the present petitioner to proceed in
the criminal trial. At this juncture. The instant criminal
proceedings cannot be quashed.
He placed the CD.
Heard the Learned Advocates. Perused the CD.
The instant case was initiated on the basis of a petition of
complaint initiated by the present opposite party No. 2. Police
has conducted the investigation and submitted a charge sheet
against all 05 accused persons including the present petitioner.
The 04 other accused persons of this case are on court bail but
the present petitions is cited as absconder.
On perusal of the CD it appears to me that the available
witnesses is stated the name of the present petitioner to be
involved in the alleged offence. Thus there are prima facie
materials standing against the present petitioner to proceed in
the criminal trial.
I have gone through the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court
passed in S. Unikrishnan. In S. Unikrishnan, under the
direction of High Court the investigation of CBI was started for
custodial death headed by one Haridath (Chief Investigating
Officer). During the investigation of the custodial death case,
Haridath committed suicide with a suicide note alleging two of
his team mate including CJM and one advocate compelled him
to do everything and cheating and putting him in deep trouble.
On the basis of such suicide note and FIR was registered u/s
306 and other corresponding Sections of IPC. The Hon'ble High
Court quashed the same u/s 482 Cr.P.C. the Hon'ble Supreme
Court also affirmed the order of High Court by observing that
18. Before parting with the case, we are
impelled to say something. Mr. Bhusan, Learned
Counsel appearing for respondents 1 and 2 has
drawn our attention to a facet of earlier judgment of
the High Court wherein it has been mentioned that
at one time the deceased was pressurised by some
superior officers. We have independently considered
the material brought on record and arrived at our
conclusion. But, regard being had to the suicide note
and other concomitant facts that have been
unfurled, we are compelled to recapitulate the
saying that suicide reflects a "species of fear". It is a
sense of defeat that corrodes the inner soul and
destroys the will power and forces one to abandon
one's own responsibility. To think of self annihilation
because of something which is disagreeable or
intolerable or unbearable, especially in a situation
where one is required to perform public duty, has to
be regarded as a non-valiant attitude that is scared
of the immediate calamity or self perceived
consequence. We may hasten to add that our
submission has nothing to do when a case under
Section 306 IPC is registered in aid of Section 113 A
of the Evidence Act, 1872
On perusing the observation of Hon'ble Supreme Court in
S. Unikrishnan it appears that the Hon'ble Supreme Court has
seen the "species of fear" in the suicide note and quashed the
proceeding as there is no prima facie material for abatement of
suicide.
The facts and circumstances of the present case is totally
different to that of the S. Unikrishnan Nair (supra). On perusal
of the CD it appears that police has collected sufficient
materials during the course of investigation. This revisional
court has no power to determine the correctness, validity and
probative value of the evidences collected by the I.O. during the
course of investigation. This court is obliged in law to exercise
jurisdiction u/s 482 Cr.P.C to quash a proceeding where there
is no prima facie case. The fishing and roving inquiry regarding
plausible defence is not acceptable at this stage. Thus I am of a
specific view that the instant criminal proceeding cannot be
quashed at this stage.
The CRR appears to be meritless and it is dismissed.
The Connected CRAN applications if pending are also
disposed of.
Any order of stay passed by this court during the
pendency of the instant criminal revision is hereby vacated.
Parties to act upon the server copy and urgent certified
copy of the judgment be received from the concerned Dept. on
usual terms and conditions.
(Subhendu Samanta, J.)
