SIRAJ HAQUE Vs. STATE OF WEST BENGAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an application for transfer of a proceeding in a complaint case being C.R. No. 1113 of 2017/ T.R. No. 1057 of 2017 presently pending before the Learned Judicial Magistrate, 2nd Court, Rampurhat, Birbhum in which process was issued for offences under Sections 500, 504 and 506 of the Penal Code and Section 66A of the Information Technology Act.

(2.) The petitioner appearing in person submitted as follows. The petitioner was a businessman stationed at Chennai. The complainant/opposite party happened to be the brother-in-law of the petitioner. The petitioner purportedly inherited a property at Rampurhat. For the last few years, the complainant had been trying to grab the entire property by any means. He had been trying to harass the petitioner by initiating different proceedings taking advantage of his profession as a lawyer. So far as the impugned proceeding was concerned, no prima facie case was made out against him. The petitioner was not even present at the place of occurrence at the alleged date and time. Pursuant to summons issued in this regard, the petitioner appeared in person before the learned Trial Court on 06.03.2018. The learned Trial Court, after verifying the documents produced by the petitioner as regards his identity, fixed 21.07.2018 as a next date. Whether the order sheet was tampered or not, subsequently it was found to have been recorded in the order sheet that the petitioner claimed to appear in person, did not produce any vakalatnama and could not satisfy the Court regarding his identity. Accordingly, a warrant of arrest was issued against the accused petitioner. Although the facts were not properly pleaded in the main revisional application filed by a learned lawyer, subsequently the correct facts were placed on record by the petitioner by way of a supplementary affidavit. The complainant/opposite party was an Advocate practising at the Rampurhat Court and was in the panel of assistant public prosecutors conducting cases for the State of West Bengal. He was an influential person of the locality. That was why the petitioner could not find any Advocate to represent him there. He had to come all the way from Chennai to defend the case himself. The petitioner had lodged a complaint against the complainant/opposite party at the Bar Council in 2019. Since several threats were given to the petitioner by the complainant's associates, he had intimated these to the police on several occasions by post. The petitioner feared that if he went to Rampurhat, he could be subjected to criminal acts. Although the petition of complaint did not have Section 66A of the Information Technology Act as a charge, yet the learned Magistrate issued process also under that provision. Not only the petitioner was a mortally afraid of going to Rampurhat to defend the case, he also believed that he would not be getting justice before the learned Trial Court where the case was pending.

(3.) Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the complainant/opposite party submitted as follows. The claims of the petitioner about threats meted out to him at the behest of the complainant or about the non availability of Advocates at Rampurhat to defend his case were not supported by documents. The complaint before the Bar Council was not about not getting any Advocate at Rampurhat to defend his case. It only contained allegations against the complainant because he was a lawyer enrolled with the Bar Council. Even no G.D. Entry or First Information Report was lodged by the petitioner about the alleged threats given at the behest of the complainant. In the main application affirmed by the petitioner himself, there was no allegation of tampering the order sheet. However, the supplementary affidavit filed subsequently contained an improved version. Had there been a tampering of the Court's records, the same should have been brought to the notice of the learned Court at the earliest. A prima facie case was made out against the petitioner as would be evident from a plain reading of the petition of complaint. The present application was filed only to delay the proceeding initiated against the petitioner.