Allowed¶¶19

Subhas Krshna Thakur v. State of West Bengal and Anr.

Criminal revision – quashing of proceeding

Calcutta HC19 Nov 2024CRR/2626/2024

Download

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Quashing of criminal proceeding; CRR No. 2626 of 2024; Suvra Ghosh, J.; decision dated 19-11-2024; Sections 420/120B/34 IPC; Section 482 CrPC; Section 161 CrPC; GR Case No. 872 of 2009; Judicial Magistrate, Bongaon; deeds of gift; blank papers; fraud and misrepresentation; 57 1/2 decimals; Mouza Chikampara and Simulpur; North 24 Parganas; death of de facto complainant; FRT; abuse of process of Court; prima facie case.

What did the court decide?

Revisional application CRR 2626 of 2024 allowed; GR Case No. 872 of 2009 quashed qua the petitioner, with the proceeding to continue against the other accused; case diary to be returned. ¶¶19

Subhas Krshna Thakur Vs State of West Bengal and Anr. — Cheating and Forgery | Calcutta HC (2024)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Revisional application CRR 2626 of 2024 allowed; GR Case No. 872 of 2009 quashed qua the petitioner, with the proceeding to continue against the other accused; case diary to be returned.

¶¶19

Issue for consideration

Whether the criminal proceeding in GR Case No. 872 of 2009 under Sections 420/120B/34 IPC, pending before the learned Judicial Magistrate, Bongaon, should be quashed qua the petitioner as an abuse of the process of the Court.

¶¶5

Court's answer

No prima facie case under Sections 420/120B/34 of the Indian Penal Code has been made out against the petitioner, and allowing the proceeding to continue would amount to abuse of the process of the Court.

¶¶18

Ratio / Principle

GR Case No. 872 of 2009 pending before the learned Judicial Magistrate, Bongaon is quashed qua the petitioner, while the proceeding shall continue against the other accused.

¶¶22

Key takeaways

Jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code ought to be exercised with extreme care, caution and circumspection and should not be used to stifle or axe down a legitimate prosecution.obiter¶¶17

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Criminal revision — quashing of proceeding — GR Case No. 872 of 2009 under Sections 420/120B/34 IPC before the learned Judicial Magistrate, Bongaon — allegation that petitioner, his brother and sister took the signature of their mother (the private opposite party, since deceased) on blank papers and converted them into two deeds of gift over 57 1/2 decimals of land in Mouza Chikampara and Simulpur — civil suit challenging the deeds pending — investigating officer did not seize the alleged forged deeds; no independent witness beyond those named in the complaint; a subsequent complaint by another son ended in FRT; de facto complainant expired on 4th February, 2014 — Held: no prima facie case under Sections 420/120B/34 IPC made out against the petitioner; continuance would amount to abuse of the process of the Court — GR Case quashed qua the petitioner; proceeding to continue against other accused — Section 482 jurisdiction to be exercised with extreme care, caution and circumspection.

¶1

25 19-11-2024 Ct. No.34 b.das

¶2

CRR No. 2626 of 2024

¶3

In the matter of : Subhas Krishna Thakur ….. petitioner . Mr. Kamalesh Ch. Saha Ms. Payel Mitra Mr. S. Saha Mr. M. Saha …for the petitioner. Ms. Rituparna De Ghose Mr. Dipankar Mahata …for the State.

¶4

Affidavit of service filed by the petitioner is taken on record.

¶5

The petitioner who is one of the sons of the private opposite party, since deceased, seeks quashing of the proceeding in connection with GR 872 of 2009 pending before the learned Judicial Magistrate, Bongaon.

¶6

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that there has been a long standing dispute between the private opposite party and her youngest son and his family on one hand and the petitioner, his brother and sister who are also the sons and daughter of the private opposite party, on the other hand.

¶7

The private opposite party has alleged that the petitioner and his brother and sister took her signature on blank papers upon practising fraud and misrepresentation and converted the same to two separate deeds of gift in

¶8

¶9

their favour in respect of 57 ½ decimals of land in Mouza - Chikampara and Simulpur under P.S. Gaighata, DistrictNorth 24 Parganas belonging to the private opposite party. A civil suit filed by the private opposite party seeking a decree for declaration that the deeds impugned are null and void and also for a decree for injunction restraining the defendants (the petitioner is one of the defendants) from disturbing her peaceful possession in respect of the said property is pending.

¶10

Learned counsel submits that though charge sheet has been submitted against the petitioner and others under Section 420/120B/34 of the Indian Penal Code, there is no evidence on record in support of the charges. Charge has been framed by the learned Trial Court on 3^rd December, 2024 and out of five charge sheeted witnesses only one witness has been examined till date.

¶11

Per contra, learned counsel for the State produces the case diary and submits that the FIR lodged by the private opposite party sufficiently depicts an offence under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code. Witnesses who have been examined under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure have supported the case made out by the private opposite party/de facto complainant.

¶12

It appears that the civil suit filed by the private opposite party with regard to the alleged deeds is pending. In course of investigation, the investigating officer has not

¶13

¶14

thought it necessary to seize the deeds alleged to be forged and manufactured. Besides the witnesses referred to in the complaint itself, no other independent witness has been examined by the prosecution.

¶15

A subsequent complaint filed by Mihir Thakur and son of Sushil Krishna Thakur who is one of the sons of the private opposite party has ended in FRT.

¶16

The de facto complainant/private opposite party has expired on 4^th February, 2014, making it difficult for the prosecution to take effective steps for arriving at a logical conclusion by the Court.

¶17

This Court is aware that jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code ought to be exercised with extreme care, caution and circumspection should not be used to stifle or axe down a legitimate prosecution.

¶18

In view of the material available on record, this Court is inclined to hold that no prima facie case under Section 420/120B/34 of the Indian Penal Code has been made out against the petitioner and allowing the proceeding to continue shall amount to abuse of the process of the Court.

¶19

Accordingly, the revisional application being CRR 2626 of 2024 is allowed.

¶20

GR Case No.872 of 2009 pending before the learned Judicial Magistrate, Bongaon be quashed qua the

¶21

¶22

petitioner. It is made clear that the proceeding shall continue against the other accused.

¶23

Case Diary be returned.

¶24

Urgent certified website copy of the order, if applied for, be given to the parties on compliance of requisite

¶25