BALARAM MONDAL Vs. STATE OF WEST BENGAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In connection with Kulti Police Station Case No. 154 of 2007, Balaram Mondal and Bijoy Karmakar, petitioners in C.R.R. No. 568 of 2008 along with Sastipada Karmakar, petitioner in C.R.R. No. 1568 of 2010 were arraigned as accuseds. The said case has now been ended in charge-sheet under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code against all the three. Since in both the aforesaid criminal revisions, the petitioners have moved this Court for quashing of the self-same charge-sheet, arising out of Kulti Police Station Case No. 154 of 2007, the same are taken up for hearing together.

(2.) In C.R.R. No. 568 of 2008, the petitioners have sought for quashing of the case on the following grounds; (a) The allegations are absolutely false and no amount of money was taken from the defacto-complainant by the petitioners. On the other hand, the defacto-complainant took a loan from the petitioners and as the petitioners demanded for repayment of the same the aforesaid complaint was lodged falsely. (b) There has been a delay about 10 years in lodging the FIR. (c) During investigation police has seized an affidavit from the possession of the defacto-complainant which shows that there was a loan transaction. (d) The allegations are civil in nature. Whereas the petitioner in C.R.R. No. 1568 of 2010 made a similar prayer for quashing on the grounds as follows; (a) There has been a delay of nearly nine years. (b) In the FIR nothing has been disclosed as to what prevented the complainant in lodging the FIR for throughout that long period. (c) The stand taken by the complainant in the FIR is contrary to the materials collected during investigation. (d) There has been no averment about the initial deception or fraudulent intention on the part of the petitioner as regards to the loan transaction. (e) The aforesaid criminal case manifestly attended with mala fides. Both the Learned Counsels, appearing for the petitioners, in the aforesaid criminal revisions, in their respective submissions, simply reiterated aforesaid points in support of the prayer for quashing. On the other hand, the Learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the State produced the Case Diary and vehemently urged that sufficient incriminating materials have been gathered during investigation against the petitioners, and as such the quashing of the charge-sheet does not at all arise.

(3.) Now, having regards to the grounds on which, the petitioners are praying for quashing of the impugned charge-sheet, I find the same are all pure question of facts and essentially the defence of the accused which cannot be gone into at this stage. Since the question is one of quashing the only thing that has to be determined whether on the face of the evidentiary materials collected by the police during investigation and without controverting the correctness of the same, the offences for which charge-sheet has been submitted has been made out or not.