Dismissed¶20

Rakhal Halder and Another v. State of West Bengal and Anr.

Calcutta HC6 Jan 2025CRR/2213/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Quashing of criminal proceeding refused at evidence stage. CRR 2213 of 2024; Rakhal Halder & Anr.; GR Case No.7366 of 2018; Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Baruipur; charge sheet under Sections 341/323/506/34 Indian Penal Code; Section 161 Code of Criminal Procedure witness statements; Case Diary; prima facie case made out; Section 482 Code of Criminal Procedure threshold quashing declined; plea recorded, evidence fixed; septuagenarian petitioner; false implication plea; plots absent from charge sheet; dismissed; no order as to costs; Suvra Ghosh, J.; 06-01-2025.

What did the court decide?

Upon consideration of the material available in the Case Diary, particularly the statement of witnesses under Section 161 of the Code, a prima facie case as alleged appears to have been made out against the petitioners. ¶14

Rakhal Halder and Another Vs State of West Bengal and Anr. — Calcutta HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

¶20

Issue for consideration

Whether the criminal proceeding being GR Case No.7366 of 2018 pending before the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Baruipur can be quashed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure on the ground that no prima facie case as alleged has been made out against the petitioners.

¶9

Court's answer

¶14

Ratio / Principle

It is for the learned Trial Court to decide upon recording evidence whether the allegations have been substantiated beyond reasonable doubt; this is not a case that can be quashed at the threshold in exercising jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

¶15

Key takeaways

The Court was not inclined to interfere with the proceedings at such mature stage (plea recorded, date fixed for evidence) and in view of the material available in the Case Diary.ratio¶17

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

CRR No. 2213 of 2024 (decided 06-01-2025, Suvra Ghosh, J.) — Rakhal Halder & Anr. sought quashing of GR Case No.7366 of 2018 pending before the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Baruipur, contending that no prima facie case had been made out, that the charge sheet (submitted against the petitioners and three others under Sections 341/323/506/34 of the Indian Penal Code) did not include the plots where the alleged incident occurred, and that the 1st petitioner, a septuagenarian, had been falsely implicated. None appeared for the private opposite party despite service. Producing the Case Diary, the State submitted that a prima facie case under Sections 341/323/506/34 was made out on the witness statements under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The Court held that a prima facie case as alleged appeared to have been made out; with plea recorded and date fixed for recording evidence, it held this was not a case quashable at the threshold under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and declined to interfere at such mature stage. CRR 2213 of 2024 dismissed; Case Diary to be returned; no order as to costs.

¶1

49 06-01-2025 Ct. No.34 b.das

¶2

CRR No. 2213 of 2024

¶3

In the matter of : Rakhal Halder & Anr.

¶4

.….. petitioners .

¶5

Mr. Prosenjit Mukherjee Ms. Babita Pramanik …for the petitioners. Mr. Prasun Kr. Dutta Mr. Amanul Islam …for the State.

¶6

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

¶7

Heard learned counsels for the parties.

¶8

None appears for the private opposite party despite service.

¶9

The petitioners seek quashing of proceeding being GR Case No.7366 of 2018 pending before the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Baruipur primarily on the ground that no prima facie case as alleged has been made out against them.

¶10

Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that though charge sheet has been submitted against the petitioners and three others under Sections 341/323/506/34 of the Indian Penal Code, the plots where the alleged incident occurred have not found place in the charge sheet.

¶11

¶12

The 1^st petitioner is a septuagenarian person and has been falsely implicated.

¶13

Producing the Case Diary, learned counsel for the State submits that a prima facie case under Section 341/323/506/34 of the Code has been made out against the petitioners upon examination of witnesses under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

¶14

Upon consideration of the material available in the Case Diary, particularly the statement of witnesses under Section 161 of the Code, this Court is of the view that a prima facie case as alleged appears to have been made out against the petitioners.

¶15

It is for the learned Trial Court to decide upon recording evidence as to whether such allegations have been substantiated beyond reasonable doubt. This is not a case that can be quashed at the threshold in exercising jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

¶16

This Court is informed that plea has been recorded and date fixed for recording evidence.

¶17

This Court is not inclined to interfere with the proceedings at such mature stage and also in view of the material available in the Case Diary.

¶18

In the result, this Court is inclined to hold that the revisional application is devoid of any merit is liable to be dismissed.

¶19

¶20

CRR 2213 of 2024 is dismissed.

¶21

Case Diary be returned.

¶22