BIR CHANDRA DAS Vs. KUMAR SARKAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Respondent no.1 Anil Kumar Sarkar made a complain with the Police that his brother late Sureswar Das committed suicide being instigated by a section of monks of ISKCON at the instigation of the petitioner Bir Chandra Das. The incident started on June 29, 2000 when one Basanti Devi lodged a complaint with the Officer-in-Charge, Ballygunge Police Station against Sureshwar Das. According to the said complaint, Basanti was a resident of Orissa. Her husband died in August 2009 due to lack of medical treatment and negligence of Adri Dharan Das, a monk of ISKCON where her husband was working for twenty years. After her husband's death she was getting rupees two thousand per month as compensation. Adri Dharan Das also agreed to pay a sum of rupees two lacs which was not paid despite promise. On June 29, 2009 when she came to collect her monthly maintenance Adri Dharan refused to pay and asked her to go to Gurusadaya Dutta Road, Kolkata and collect money from Sureswara Das. Accordingly, Basanti went there and met Sureswara. Sureswara ravished her and threatened her with dire consequence. The Police immediately acted on the said complaint and arrested Sureswara. It appears that the Police ultimately submitted a final report wherein the Investigating Officer observed that Sureswara was falsely implicated in the said case. However Sureswara by that time committed suicide in custody due to depression. While doing so, he left a suicidal note involving some of the monks including Bir Chandra. Since then the brother of Sureswara, Anil Kumar was moving one after the other complaint as against the persons named by Sureswara in his suicidal note. Anil filed an application under Section 211 of the Indian Penal Code against Basanti Devi for lodging a false complaint. With regard to the report on the suicide Anil filed a "Naraji" petition alleging that the Police did not investigate the case properly. Ultimately, Anil filed an application under Section 200 of the Criminal Procedure Code against Basanti, Bir Chandra and five others implicating them under Section 120-B/211/376 of the Indian Penal Code read with Section 500 thereof. The learned Magistrate after hearing the complaint observed that prima facie case was established against the accused committing offence punishable under Section 211/500 of the Indian Penal Code read with Section 120-B thereof and accordingly directed process to be issued. Bir Chandra approached this Court for quashing of the said proceeding being Case No.C-2002/2008.

(2.) On the issue of defamation Mr. Bagchi cited an age old decision (Satis Chandra Chakrabarti VS- Ram Dayal De, 1921 AIR(Cal) 1) of Sir Ashutosh Mookerjee,J., the Acting Chief Justice (as His Lordship the then was). Speaking for a Five Judge Bench, His Lordship observed that refused to sanction to prosecute under Section 195 where defamatory statement was made in a judicial proceeding would not debar a complaint made under Section 500 of the Indian Penal Code. Their Lordships summarized the views in paragraph 22 which is quoted below :-

(3.) The parties also cited the following decisions :