9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (8) TMI 1520X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... arent Section 203 IPC. Therefore to exclude Section 354 IPC from the ambit of Section 203 IPC once the act is allegedly committed inside the country would be putting a premium to the Explanation overriding the intention of the controlling section - This Court cannot also lose sight of the fact that the bitter personal relationship between the parties has time and again forced several courts to examine the crux of the dispute and sift the chaff from the grain. This Court is of the considered view that in order to do so both the Ld. Trial Court and the Revisionist Court can apply any tool legally under their command to arrive at a just finding. Such tools cannot exclude calling for a police report to assist the Court in its enquiry. When the Ld. Courts are sincerely ardent to direct the gathering of facts in this incessant battle between the parties, the search for the truth by the Ld. Courts cannot be interfered with at this stage by this Court exercising its jurisdiction under Section 482 CrPC. - Finally, this Court finds substance in the legal position that since the petitioner has already entered plea in C-8509/2013, which is evident from the order of the Ld. 10th JM dated 6th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ting with the matter it should be proper to give my observation that the effort on the part of mine is purely informal in nature and in course of interaction with the parties it is seemed to me that Smt. Arpita Mukherjee thinks and believes that the complainant Deva Prasad Ganguly and his wife are greedy persons and on some pretext want to grab the property or it's lion share of her father's property and thereby will put her with her son financially insecured position. While the complainant thinks or believes that he and his wife have not been getting respect and treatment from the accused person and her father as per their expectation and entitlement. Result of which whole dispute between them and their families are cropped up. However I want to opine that Smt. Arpita Mukherjee (accd.) acts on the basis of notion and suspicion. On the other hand Mr. Deva Prasad Gangully is more logical and acts on some documents and proof and finally I say both of them are very adamant and ultimately my three hours effort fails. Matter has been left to their respective sense and wisdom with all hope if their good sense prevails in future including next date as fixed above on 08-08-2011 for ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e petitioner prays for a direction of quashing the impugned proceedings being C-8509/2013 instituted by the OP1 and pending before the Court of the Ld. 10th JM, Alipore under Sections 302/501 of the Indian Penal Code (for short IPC). The proceedings being C-8509/2013 have their genesis in a complaint filed by the petitioner to the Officer-in-Charge, Lake Police Station on the 26th of September, 2012. The essential part of the complaint reads as follows:-- Like everyday, today, that is 26.09.2012 at around 7.05 - 7.10 am, I went to drop my son to the pickup point of the Scholl Bus near Priya Cinema. On the way along Motilal Nehru Road, near Oncology Centre, suddenly a youth aged about 20-22 years pounced upon me from rear side. He tore my wearing apparel and tried to match my gold chain, that I was wearing. His actions were dangerous. Not only that he tried to snatch my gold chain, in the course he also tried to outrage my modesty. As I raised an alarm few people arrived at the scene and the youth fled away. While going he gave me a threat that saying Rantu Babu will not leave you alone . 12. In his complaint being C-8509/2013 filed before the CJM, Alipore the OP1 has, in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... o the utter astonishment and dismay of the petitioner, a person of considerable social status and standing, terribly humiliated and denigrated by the police enquiry on the basis of an out and out false, mischievous and malicious complaint lodged by the accused person virtually lowering the petitioner to the status of a street ruffian but the Lake P.S. has been sitting on the matter for months on end without any cogent reason altogether. Your petitioner is constrained to state that Lake P.S. has abdicated its statutory duty as per the Law of the Land in the matter of initiating a proceeding U/s. 182 of the I.P.C. knowing it perfectly well that as per the statute the petitioner on his own is barred from initiating any proceeding U/s. 182 of the I.P.C. The petitioner immediately on 09.02.2013 filed a written clarification, with the Lake P.S. in connection with the allegation made by the accused in the said complaint on 26.09.2012 and thereafter forthwith/brought the matter to the notice of the Ld. 3rd A.D.J. Alipore, South 24 Parganas in case No. 465 of 2012 on the basis of which the Ld. Court was pleased to direct the O.C., Lake P.S. to file a report in the matter, with specific ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... trict and Sessions Court, Alipore. 18. Sri Sengupta points out that C-465/2012 was instituted on 12th of December, 2012 and was independent of the incident on 26th September, 2012 out of which C-8509/2013 emanates. Strangely, however the Ld. 3rd Additional District Court at Alipore by order dated 12th March, 2013 was pleased to direct the police in respect of the offence alleged to have been committed on 26th September, 2012 -although such offence was neither connected nor associated with C-465/2012 - which was an application in revision to the complaint of the opposite party under Sections 504, 506 and 34 of the IPC (being C-630/2011) to file a report. 19. It is relevant for the purpose of discussion by this Court to reproduce the order No. 9 dated 12th March, 2013 of the Ld. 3rd Additional District Court in C-465/2012:-- After going through the petitioner dt. 26.2.13 and the written objection which is filed by the O.P. No. 1 against the said petition and also after considering the arguments highlighted by the Ld. Advocate of both sides, this court finds that U/S 403 Cr. P.C. this court has jurisdiction to entertain these matters particularly when all further proceedings ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Prosanta Kr. Chatterjee. As the matter related with Civil dispute within the family and several complaint lodged on earlier occasions by the parties, initially no case was recorded and an enquiry was made by examining the local witness of the alleged incident. During enquiry it could be learnt that firstly Mr. Deva Prosad Ganguly is not nick named as Rantu at the locale. Secondly at the alleged place of occurrence some persons were examined who were there at that relevant point of time and it could be ascertained from them that they did not witness any such incident as alleged in the letter of complaint of the Smt. XX Arpita Mukherjee, However Smt. Arpita Mukherjee was also requested to produce any witness of the incident but she decline. This to be mentioned here that over their dispute several complaints have been rebined at the B.S. by Smt. Arpita Mukherjee but she always avoided the E.O. on some plea and pretext and those enquiry could not be completed. Whereas Mr. Deva Prosad Ganguly was co-operative during enquiry. In court of enquiry Mr. Deva prosad Ganguly strongly denied the allegation and stated that his reputation by lodging false and fictitious complaint against hi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 0th November, 2013 which is impugned in the present CRR 1251 of 2014 directing issuance of process is vitiated by non-application of mind and was not warranted in the facts of the present case. Relying heavily on the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Pepsi Foods Ltd. Anr. v. Special Judicial Magistrate Ors. reported in 1999 (5) SCC 749, Sri Sengupta argues that issuance of process against any person is a serious matter. No process could have been issued by the ld. 10th JM on the complaint of the OP1 dated 8th November, 2013 without elaborate scrutiny of documents and properly examining the substance of the allegations. Sri Sengupta points out that the law laid down in Pepsi Foods (supra) has been subsequently upheld in the judgment of S. Khushboo v. Manniamal Anr. reported in 2010 (5) SCC 600. 24. Developing his arguments further on the point that the order directing issuance of process was mechanical, Sri Sengupta takes this Court to the provisions of Section 203 IPC. Section 203 IPC reads as follows:-- 203. Giving false information respecting an offence committed. - Whoever, knowing or having reason to believe that an offence has been committed, given any in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ying further on G. Sagar Suri Anr. v. State of U.P. Ors. reported in 2000 (2) SCC 636, Sri Sengupta submits that the petitioner is entitled to move this Hon'ble Court invoking Section 482 CrPC or Article 227 of the Constitution of India when in the absence of any offence being made out against her in the complaint filed by the OP1, the petitioner should not be allowed to go through the agony of a criminal trial. 29. Sri Sengupta points out that the State-OP2 represented by Ld. Counsel before this Court has been unable to substantiate the steps taken by the Investigating Authority on the complaint of the petitioner dated 26th September, 2012. Neither the State has been able to produce any record to such effect. 30. Sri Sengupta concludes by arguing that the petitioner is a divorcee and living with her school going son and facing several criminal proceedings instituted at the instance of the OP1 before several Ld. Courts at Alipore and the present impugned proceedings being C-8509/2013 is one more attempt by the OP1 to intimidate the petitioner to deprive her of her ancestral property. 31. Per contra, Sri Arindam Jana, Ld. Counsel for the OP1 argues that time and aga ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... u' of the OP1 is only known to the petitioner and close relatives. The police report dated 20th March, 2013 as submitted in C-465/2012 gives the picture that the nickname of OP1 'Rantu babu' was not known to the local persons of the area and preliminary enquiry reveals that the local persons were present at the relevant time. 36. Sri Jana also submits that from the police report it appears that the petitioner refused to cooperate in the enquiry and such has been her regular habit. Sri Jana relies upon the fact that several reports filed by the police earlier namely, being report dated 29th February, 2012 in C-630/2011; report dated 29th August, 2012 in C-630/2011; General Diary Entry dated 10th August, 2011 as recorded by the police; and the report dated 20th March, 2013 in C-465/2012 repeat the fact that the petitioner is not at all interested in assisting the police to carry forward their enquiry and allegedly suffers from the mania of being haunted by the OP1 and his wife with the intention of ousting her from her parental property. On the other hand, Sri Jana argues that the police report shows that the OP1 has been always cooperating with the investigating autho ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d in the following sections, namely, sections 64, 65, 67, 71, 109, 110, 114, 115, 116, 117, [118, 119 and 120], 187, 194, 195, 203, 211, 213, 214, 221, 222, 223, 224, 225, 327, 328, 329, 330, 331, 347, 348, 388, 389 and 445, the word 'offence' denotes a thing punishable under this Code, or under any special or local law as hereinafter defined. And in sections 141, 176, 177, 201, 202, 212, 216 and 441, the word 'offence' has the same meaning when the thing punishable under the special or local law is punishable under such law with or without fine. 42. To the further mind of this Court the Explanation to Section 203 IPC covers the category of offences which, if committed at any place out of the country would be punishable by treating such offence to have been committed inside the country. Therefore, the categories of offences in the Explanation to Section 203 IPC by the use of the words offence includes creates an exclusive category of offences which will be punishable under Sections 201, 202 and 203 IPC by treating them to be punishable in India although they may have been committed at any place outside India. 43. Therefore, the only conclusion this Co ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
