Held that proceedings in a GR Case regarding an arson incident must be quashed. The court found no eyewitness, failed police investigation, and business rivalry as the motive, making any trial an abuse of process economy.
Criminal revision disposed of; proceedings in GR Case No. 144(1)/2009 quashed.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
30.1.2023 Item No.18 BR
CRR 3697 of 2010 With CRAN 1 of 2011
In the matter of : Maniraj Golay @ Tamang & Ors.
…….petitioners Mr.Milon Mukherjee, Senior Advocate, Mr. Biswajit Manna, Mr. Smartajit Sarkar …. For the Petitioners
Mr.Binay Panda, Ms. Puspita Saha …. For the State
By filing the application under Section 482 of the Cr. P C the petitioners are seeking order of quashment of the proceeding of GR Case No. 144 (1) 2009 pending before the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate , Kurseong which arose out of Mirik P.S. Case No. 57 of 2009. One Mahavir Prasad Gupta , opposite party no. 2 set the criminal administration of Justice into motion by informing the Officer-in-Charge of Mirik P.S., Darjeeling stating inter alia, that on 28th July, 2009 around 10 p.m. some antisocial element set fire at his residence cum shop which he was occupying
as tenant under Charan Bahadur Prodhan . The information since disclosed offence cognizable in nature the police registered Mirik P.S. Case No. 57 of 2009 took up investigation and submitted charge sheet against five accused persons who are the petitioners before this Court. Upon perusal of the written information as well as charge sheet I find that informant could not disclose name of any of the miscreants and after investigation, the police also failed to find out the miscreants as there was no eye witness in the case. The petitioners , according to the de facto complainant, are the person dealing in identical merchandise and advent of the de facto complainant, with grocery shop in the locality made them unhappy. In the final report also the police stated that the incident took place because of business rivalry. In absence of any eye witness to the occurrence , a charge cannot be proved by direct evidence. Displeasure of fellow businessment cannot be considered as sufficient to make the petitioners culpable for committing the alleged offence. Therefore, police had no reason to send the accused person for trial ultimately where an order of acquittal is fait accompli. It would be an utter abuse of process of law to keep the proeeding alive. In my humble opinion this is a fit case to invoke the provision of Section 482
to quash the proceeding of the GR Case No. 144 (1) of 2009 pending before the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kurseong.
Thus, the criminal revision is disposed of. Application, if any , is also disposed of.
Let a copy of the order be sent down to the learned Trial Court for information and necessary action.
Urgent certified copy ,if applied therefor, be supplied upon compliance of usual formalities.
( Siddhartha Roy Chowdhury, J. )
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the criminal proceedings in a GR Case arising from a burning incident must be quashed under Section 482 CrPC due to lack of eyewitnesses and an inevitable acquittal.
Whether the absence of direct evidence and the motive of business rivalry suffices to deprive the trial a possibility of success.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Maniraj Golay @ Tamang & Ors.
State
Siddhartha Roy Chowdhury
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
