GOUTAM GHOSHAL Vs. STATE OF WEST BENGAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) : 1. ONE F.I.R. ---- ONE INVESTIGATION --- TWO CHARGE-SHEETS AND THAT TOO FILED IN TWO DIFFERENT COURTS AT DIFFERENT PLACES - --- IS REALLY UNHEARD OF. Mr. Himangshu De, learned Counsel on behalf of the opposite party no. 2, CBI failed to explain the situation.

(2.) PRADIP Kumar Das, General Manager, UCO Bank, Zonal Office, Kolkata lodged one FIR with CBI against Ajoy Kumar Bayen, Managing Director of M/S. Nivediata Diagnostic Research Hospital Pvt. Ltd., Sumanta Sen, Proprietor of M/s. Medico Electronics, D. Mukherjee, the Branch Manager, Kankurgachi UCO Bank, R. N. Majumder, the then Branch Manager Kankurgachi UCO Bank, Kolkata, Shri Ghosh, the then Deputy General Manager, UCO Bank Regional Office, Kolkata and others alleging therein that they in connivance with each other defrauded the Bank and thereby caused wrongful loss of the Bank to the tune of Rs. 5,27,68,900/-. The case was investigated into by the CBI but it filed two charge-sheets -- one in Alipore Court and another in Sealdah Court. The charge-sheet which was filed in the Sealdah Court ended as :

(3.) I have carefully gone through the FIR lodged by the Regional Manager of the UCO Bank with rapt attention. This Court also has got an opportunity to leaf through the case docket produced by Mr. De, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the CBI. Even making strenuous efforts, this Court has failed to find out that any case, whatsoever, has made out against this petitioner by the CBI. Only one witness in course of his examination under Section 161 of Cr.P.C., stated that this petitioner was having a joint account with Ajay Kumar Bayen and that account was exclusively operated by none but Ajoy Kumar Bayen. On the basis of that statement only, the CBI thought it proper to add the name of this petitioner to the name of A. K. Bayen as an accused in the charge-sheet. I must say that no offence, in fact and in substance, even prima facie is made out against this petitioner either in the FIR or in the charge-sheet under Sections 120B/420/463 and 471 of IPC. The offence under Section 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act was not found correct by the CBI itself. Therefore, I find substance in the submission of Mr. Banerjee, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner. It is settled principle of law that High Court is invested with plenary power to quash Criminal Proceeding pending in inferior Courts where the allegations in the FIR or the complaint even if they are taken on their face value and accepted uncontrovated in their entirety do not constitute the offence alleged. This principle has been taken by the Hon'ble Apex Court consistently right from its decision in off quoted judgement in State of Hariyana Vs. Bajanlal, reported in 1992 Supplementary (1) SCC 335, till this date. Accordingly, in view the facts above, the proceeding against the petitioner Gautam Ghoshal is liable to be quashed.