HARDAMA Vs. STATE OF WEST BENGAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The application has been filed under Sec. 401 and Sec. 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for quashing of the F.I.R no. 344 of 2021, pending before the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate, Dantan West Midnapur. The complainant is an advocate of Calcutta High Court and he lodged the complaint on 23/11/2021 at around 3:20 PM. When he was leaving his chamber, he found one Palash Bera, Alias Bhola and the petitioner looking at the Opposite Party no. 2 ridiculed him and on asking Palash started abusing him with the filthy languages. The Opposite Party no.2, tried to take the petitioner and said Palash to his chamber for having a discussion, but Palash resisted and called his parents who came and started threatening the Opposite Party no.2 with dire consequences and instigated to kill the Opposite Party no. 2 who attempted to hit him by first targeting the left side head near the left ear lobe of the OP no.2, but the same could not happen due to timely intervention of the brother-in-law of the OP no. 2 and then Ramesh threatened to kill the Opposite Party no. 2 within 24 hours. The Opposite Party no. 2 on the basis of this fact lodged the F.I.R against the four accused including the petitioner at, Mohanpur Police Station on November 23, 2021 being F.I.R no. 344/21, under Sec. 341, 323, 320 307 and 506 and Sec. 34 of the Indian Penal Code. The I.O submitted charge-sheet against the accused and the petitioner before the Learned Court and only found evidence of Sec. 341/323/506/34 of the Indian Penal Code. Petitioner has filed the present case for quashing of such proceeding. Submissions

(2.) It is the contention of the Learned Advocate representing the petitioner that two basic questions has been raised as to whether this court has the jurisdiction in determining and passing order in the aforesaid matter where the prayer is being made for the F.I.R to be quashed even after charge-sheet has been filed and whether the complaint of the Opposite Party no. 2, show any reference of alleged crime under Sec. 323/341/506 of the Indian penal code directly imputed on the petitioner. Further whether the Opposite Party no.2 claim that this revisional application is not maintainable on the basis of the precedent set by the Hon 'ble Supreme Court of India in Pradnya Pranjal Kulkarni versus State of Maharashtra 2025 SC online SC 1948.

(3.) It is submitted by the Learned Advocate that under Sec. 401, read with Sec. 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and Sec. 442 read with Sec. 528 of the BSS, this Court has the power and jurisdiction to determine the instant matter and this Court has statutory power to quash the FIR after perusing the complaint, FIR and charge sheet. The Court comes to the conclusion that no separate case has been made out against the present petitioner and found from the F.I.R that the basic requirement for lodging, such complaint is absent and the police made the basic enquiry in the case under Sec. 323/34 IPC and 506 before lodging FIR. No medical or injury report was filed at the time of lodging of FIR in order to prove Sec. 323 of the Indian Penal Code which was received on November 23, 2021 at 17.05 PM. It is further submitted that there was no actual indication of any crime against the petitioner, though he has been arrayed as an accused person in the written complaint. No case has been made out to attract Sec. 506 as the Opposite Party no.2 alleged that the petitioner was ridiculing him and insulting him, when to prove a case of criminal intimidation existence of threat and intimidation are necessary, which were absent against the petitioner.