Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)
Tapan Roy @ Paul vs The State Of West Bengal & Ors on 27 September, 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
(Criminal Revisional Jurisdiction)
APPELLATE SIDE
Present:
The Hon'ble Justice Shampa Dutt (Paul)
CRR 1056 of 2020
With
CRAN 1 of 2020
(Old No.: CRAN 2764 of 2020)
With
CRAN 2 of 2021
Tapan Roy @ Paul
Vs
The State of West Bengal & Ors.
For the Petitioner : Mr. Satrajit Sinha Roy.
For the State : Mr. Saibal Bapuli,
Mr. Arijit Ganguly,
Mr. Sanjib Kumar Dan.
Hearing concluded on : 30.08.2023
Judgment on : 27.09.2023
2
Shampa Dutt (Paul), J.:
1. The present revision has been preferred praying for quashing of Baranagar
Police Station Case No. 427 of 2019 and Baranagar Police Station Case No.
140 of 2020 pending before the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate at
Barrackpore.
2. The petitioner's case is that the opposite party no.4 lodged a complaint
before the Baranagar Police Station against the petitioner and his wife on
18th March, 2020 which was registered as Baranagar Police Case no.
140/2020 dated 18th March, 2020 under Sections 323/354/506/34 of the
Indian Penal Code, as a counter blast to Baranagar Police Station Case no.
138/2020 dated 18th March, 2020 lodged by the revisional petitioner
herein.
3. The allegation in the complaint are as follows:-
i) The opposite party with aide and help of their local
councilor and other anti social elements tried to liquidate
the petitioner and his family with two children upon
burning the front door of the flat and nearby areas of the
common passage of the building was heavily burnt which
was observed by the petitioner on the next date upon
opening the front door.
ii) The grievance of the petitioner is that the opposite party
was involved in electricity theft and have connected their
electricity line from the meter of the petitioner which was
complained before the Local office of the Calcutta Electric
Supply Corporation and also lodged a complaint before the
3
Inspector-in-Charge, Baranagar Police Station. Such
complaint was lodged on the 16th July, 2019 and the
petitioner locked the meter board of the petitioner for
further stealing of electricity. The opposite party no. 4 was
running the business of 'honey comb' in their flat in
collusion with other accuseds. Such electricity theft was
made to run the Air-conditioner machine throughout day or
night.
iii) On 26.08.2019 the said opposite party no. 4 and other
accuseds threatened the petitioner with dire consequences
and asked the key of the meter box of the petitioner to do
further mischief and to operate their respective illegal
electricity connection. It is pertinent to mention herein that
the petitioner is an Advocate. The petitioner lodged a
complaint on 26th August, 2019 intimating the aforesaid
incident before the Baranagar Police Station.
iv) On 28th August, 2019 the petitioner observed in morning
while he was about to move for dropping his sons in their
respective school that the entire front part of the flat
including enter and exit door was burnt and the marble
finishing of the terrace was also destroyed. The petitioner
lodged a complaint immediately before the Baranagar
Police Station complaining the said respondent that the
accused persons perpetrated criminal conspiracy to
liquidate the petitioner and his family for disclosing the
mischief.
v) That the accused persons assaulted the petitioner and his
wife who had sustained injury and the case was
registered as Baranagar, P.S. Case No. 138/2020 dated
18th March, 2020.
4. The petitioner has thus prayed that Baranagar P.S. Case No. 140/2020
dated 18th March, 2020 under Sections 323/324/506/34 of the Indian
Penal Code and the Baranagar P.S. Case No. 427 of 2019 dated 28th
August, 2019 are required to be quashed as those cases were instituted as
a counter blast to the petitioner's cases being Baranagar Police Station No.
426 of 2019 and Baranagar P.S. Case No. 23 of 2020 dated 15th January,
2020 and Baranagar P.S. Case No. 138 of 2020 dated 18th March, 2020
filed against the opposite party/complainant herein.
5. Mr. Satrajit Sinha Roy, learned counsel for the petitioner has
submitted that the aforesaid Baranagar P.S. Case No. 427 of 2019 and
Baranagar P.S. Case No. 140 of 2020 was registered without prima facie
material on record and those cases are untenable are law.
6. That the Baranagar P.S. Case No. 427 of 2019 and Baranagar P.S. Case no.
140 of 2020 failed to disclose any offence upon prima facie document
and/or article seized by the Baranagar Police Station.
7. That Baranagar P.S. Case No. 427 of 2019 and Baranagar P.S. Case no.
140 of 2020 were instituted to stall the investigation of the cases registered
against the complainant herein, by the petitioner and as such being mala
fide, illegal and bad in law and are required to be quashed.
8. The learned counsel for the state has placed the case diary related to
both the cases.
9. In spite of due service upon the opposite party, Ms Saptami
Mukherjee @Dolly, there is no representation on her behalf.
10. From the case diary related to Baranagar P.S. Case no. 427 of 2019
under Sections 435/506 of the Indian Penal Code, it appears that the
said case has ended in FRT.
11. From the materials in the case diary in Baranagar P.S. Case No. 140 of
2020 under Sections 354/323/506/34 of the Indian Penal Code, it appears
at page 9 that the opposite party, Saptami Mukherjee was treated at
Baranagar State General Hospital on 18.03.2020. The following injuries
were found on examination:-
i) O/E:- Abrasion injuries over neck, Rt hand, forearm and lower
lip oozing from lower lip pain and swelling and redness over face
(just below Lt. eye).
History of assault was given as:-
i) Physical assault by Tapan Roy @ Paul and his wife help of a
stick and brooms and shoes over face, lips, hand and upper limbs.
12. Several statements under Section 161 Cr.P.C. has been recorded,
which prima facie show that the parties are residents of the same
premises. There are several disputes, case and counter cases between
the parties.
13. Materials on record make out a prima facie case against the petitioner in
respect of the offences alleged, which should be adjudicated in trial.
14. CRR 1056 of 2020 is dismissed.
15. The Learned Trial Court to refer the case and the parties to mediation to
the concerned District Legal Services Authority, Mediation Centre.
16. In case of the mediation not being fruitful, the Learned Trial Court shall
proceed in accordance with law.
17. All connected applications, if any, stands disposed of.
18. Interim order, if any, stands vacated.
19. Copy of this judgment be sent to the learned Trial Court for necessary
compliance.
20. Urgent certified website copy of this judgment, if applied for, be supplied
expeditiously after complying with all, necessary legal formalities.
(Shampa Dutt (Paul), J.)
