SHREYAS KUMAR Vs. STATE OF WEST BENGAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Being aggrieved with the proceeding of Special Case No. 32/2017 pending before the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge, 1st Court, Alipore arising out of Garfa PS Case no. 256/17 dtd. 29/8/2017 under sec. 3(1)(r) of the Schedule Cast and Schedule Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act 1989, ( in short Act of 1989) read with sec. 34 of the Indian Penal Code, (IPC), present application has been preferred.

(2.) In the petition of complaint the allegation levelled, inter alia, is as follows:-

(3.) Mr. Sandipan Ganguly appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that the petitioner is completely innocent and in no way connected with the commission of alleged offence and he has been falsely implicated. Petitioner never made any imputation against the cast of opposite party no. 2. No specific role has been attributed to the present petitioner in the alleged commission of offence in the FIR. The petitioner has not justified as to how and under what circumstances the present case is required to be proceeded against the present petitioner. Apart from making generic allegations no specific role has been attributed against the present petitioner in the alleged offence. Mr. Ganguly further submits that, the present petitioner came to know that there was previous dispute between opposite party no. 2 Dipesh Chandra Roy and accused no. 1, namely Mrityunjoy Patra whereby it was alleged that the opposite party no. 2 in connivance with a promoter namely, Krishnendu Dey Sarkar had defrauded accused no. 1 Mrityunjoy Patra for a sum of Rs.20.00 lakhs. However, the present petitioner had never personally met with the accused no. 1 and was never party to the said transaction. Mr. Ganguly further submits that the present petitioner came into the picture only after he raised objection before their school's ex-students association about the fraud committed by opposite party no.2 and thereby sent mail exposing the alleged fraud committed by opposite party no. 2 and only questioned the integrity of the opposite party no. 2 as an office bearer of the ex-students school association. Only for this reason the petitioner has been made accused by the opposite party no. 2 and the only alleged offence that petitioner has committed is that he decided to speak in favour of accused no. 1 thereby bringing it to notice to the ex-students association.