USHA RANI MISHRA Vs. STATE OF WEST BENGAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this criminal revision the subject matter of challenge is an order of framing charge under Sections 408/409 of the Indian Penal Code.

(2.) Heard the Learned Counsels appearing on behalf of the parties. Perused the Lower Court Records as well as the charge-sheeted materials whereupon order impugned has been passed.

(3.) It has been vehemently urged by the learned advocate of the petitioners' that without disposing of their application under Section 227 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for discharge the Learned Court below mostly illegally and erroneously framed charge against him. Besides the aforesaid submissions it has further been contended as follows; (a) On the basis of the evidentiary materials collected by the police during investigation no case has been made out. (b) The petitioner no. 1 is a Head Sahayika of Barandia Sishu Siksha Kendra employed on a yearly contract basis and therefore she is not a public servant within the meaning of Section 21 of the Indian Penal Code as well as the petitioner no. 2 her husband a social worker. (c) The allegations are absolutely false and on the request of the Secretary of the school, i.e., the defacto-complainant, the opposite party no. 2 herein, the petitioner no. 2 kept the amount in question as Jimmadar and on January 16, 2007 same has been returned to him against proper receipt. (d) There has been an inordinate delay in lodging the FIR for about seven months. On the other hand, both the Learned Counsels appearing on behalf of the opposite parties vehemently opposed the payer for quashing. The learned advocate appearing on behalf of the defacto-complainant strongly disputed the factum of receipt of the money back. It may be noted during the hearing of the case the original copy of the receipt was produced before this Court when the defacto-complainant who was personally present in Court disputed his signature in the said documents as well as the factum of receipt back of the said amount of money. The Learned Counsel for the State produced the Case Diary and submitted that sufficient evidentiary materials have been collected, as such there cannot be any question of quashing of the charge-sheet.