RUMA RAHA DUTTA Vs. STATE OF WEST BENGAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS criminal revision is preferred by the petitioners for quashing the proceeding being G. R. Case No.807 of 2007 arising out of Dankuni Police Station Case No.151 of 2007 dated 30.09.2007 under Sections 341/323/506/509/34 of the Indian Penal Code and under Sections 3(1)(x) and 4 of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 pending before the Court of Learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Serampore, Hooghly.

(2.) THE Opposite Party No.2 is the Assistant Teacher of Raghunathpur Balika Vidyalaya and her husband Shri Gora Chand Das is a Senior Labour Welfare Inspector of the Eastern Railway. The Petitioner No.1 is the Headmistress of Raghunathpur Balika Vidyalaya. The Petitioner No.2 is the Secretary, the Petitioner No.3 is the President and the Petitioner No.4 is the member of the Managing Committee of the said Raghunathpur Balika Vidyalaya. On 30.09.2007 the Opposite Party No.2 filed one petition of complaint before the Officer -in - charge of Dankuni Police Station which was treated as Dankuni Police Station Case No.151 of 2007 dated 30.09.2007. The allegations made by the Opposite Party No.2 being the defacto complainant in the written complaint treated as F.I.R. are as follows:

(3.) THE proposition of law laid down by the Supreme Court of India in the Case of "Union of India V. Prakash P. Hinduja" reported in 2003 SCC (Cri.)1314 for quashing the criminal proceedings by invoking inherent power under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 is as follows: i) where the allegations made in the F.I.R. or complaint even if they are taken at their face value and accepted in entirety do not prima facie constitute any offence against the accused, ii) where the uncontroverted allegations made in the F.I.R. or complaint and the evidence collected in support of the same do not disclose the commission of any offence against the accused, and iii) where there is an express legal bar engrafted in any of the provision of the Code of Criminal Procedure or the act concerned to the institution and continuance of the proceedings." It is also laid down by the Apex Court in the case of "Rupan Deol Bajaj V. Kanwar Pal Singh gill" reported in 1995 SCC (Cri.) 1059 that the criminal proceedings may be quashed by exercise of inherent power of the High Court where the allegations made in the F.I.R. or complaint are so absurd and inherently improbable on the basis of which no prudent person can ever reach a just conclusion that there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused.