MANOJ RABIDAS Vs. STATE OF WEST BENGAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an application for quashing of a proceeding in which a charge-sheet was submitted under Sections 323, 326, 341, 385 and 506 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code.

(2.) Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits as follows. The petitioner used to deal in iron scraps. On a particular day, a police officer from the local police station came to the premises of the petitioner, did not find anything irregular, yet asked the petitioner to meet the Inspector-in-Charge of the police station. When the petitioner went to meet the said Inspector-in-Charge, he threatened them and abused them taking the name of their caste. For this incident that allegedly took place on 7.1.2015, the petitioner lodged a complaint on 9.1.2015. Subsequently, on 8.4.2015, the present FIR was lodged by the defacto- complainant alleging commission of offences under Sections 307, 323, 325, 326, 341, 385 and 506 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 25 and 27 of the Arms Act. The case was absolutely false and the defacto-complainant was hand-picked by the police officer to falsely implicate the petitioner out of previous grudge. A charge-sheet was filed within 15 days. Although the charges under Sections 307 and 326 of the Penal Code and under Sections 25 and 27 of the Arms Act could not even be remotely imputed on the accused, a charge-sheet was submitted under Sections 323, 326, 341, 385 and 506 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. In the meantime, pursuant to a complaint filed by the petitioner against the errant police officers before the National Commission for Schedule Castes, an inquiry report, among other things, mentioned that there was no material under Sections 326 and 385 of the Penal Code in the present case that was started against the petitioner. The Inspector-in-Charge of the police station had a grudge against the petitioner since when he was employed at the License Section and the petitioner had applied for a gun license. In the departmental proceeding, the three police officers including the Investigating Officer of the present case were punished for their devious roles in investigating the instant case. All these showed that the investigation of the case was malafide and tainted. Besides, the injury report of the alleged victim did not indicate any serious assault. Rather, it was clearly stated by the patient that the assault was by fists and flows. The statements recorded under Section 161 were also hearsay in nature. As such, no prima facie is made out against the present petitioner as would be evident from a plain reading of the charge-sheet and the accompanying documents. More particularly, no case whatsoever is made out under Sections 326 and 385 of the Penal Code.

(3.) Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State submits as follows. The statement of the present victim/defacto-complainant clearly makes out a case against the petitioner. From the statement of independent witnesses including neighbours recorded under Section 161 of the Code as contained at pages 7, 8 and 9 of the case diary, it is evident that the petitioner and others came to the land of the defacto-complainant and assaulted them. However, from such statements and the injury report, no element of Section 325 of the Penal Code seems to exist.