KAMAL KRISHNA SARDAR Vs. STATE OF WEST BENGAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Grievances of the petitioner in this case arising out of an application under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, as ventilated in the application, may briefly be stated as follows: The petitioner is the stockist in respect of Mid^day Meal and SGRY rice of Kultali Block and has been carrying on the said business by distributing foodgrains to the distributing agents. On 12.11.2005 a written complaint was made by the Block Development Officer, Kultali which was addressed to the Officer-in-Charge of the Kultali Police Station. Request was made for treating the said complaint as First Information Report.

(2.) On the basis of the said complaint a criminal case, being Kultali P.S. Case No. 134 of 2005 dated 12.11.2005 under section 409/34 of Indian Penal Code corresponding to B.G.R. Case No. 4074 of 2005, was started. Allegations made in the said petition of complaint do not constitute any offence under section 409 and section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. There is no allegation in the complaint that the petitioner misappropriated foodgrains entrusted to him and as such, ingredients of the offence punishable under section 409 of Indian Penal Code were not disclosed in the First Information Report. The allegations made in the First Information Report do not constitute any cognizable offence nor do the same make out a case against the petitioner. The petitioner was falsely implicated in the present case and it was done by the Block Development Officer, Kultali, and his associates with a mala fide intention. The concerned Block Development Officer was all along interested to appoint one Gouri Bala Haider as stockist under the Mid-day Meal Scheme and Sampurna Gramin Rojgar Yojana. For this, the present petitioner was served with show-cause notices on several occasions. The petitioner sought for necessary redress before the Hon'ble High Court. Being unsuccessful in dislodging the petitioner from his assignment as stockist, the Block Development Officer with his associates filed the said case with false and absurd allegations. There is no explanation for the delay in filing the complaint over an occurrence, which allegedly took place on 26.10.2005. There is reference of one Memo No. 998 dated 9.11.2005 in the said complaint dated 12.11.2005. As such, the complaint dated 12.11.2005, being a second FIR over the self-same allegations, is liable to be quashed. It is alleged that the allegations in the FIR and the evidence collected so far do not constitute any offience under section 409/34 of IPC. Being aggrieved by initiation of such a proceeding, being Kultali P.S. Case No. 134 of 2005 dated 12.11.2005 under section 409/34 of IPC, the petitioner by filing such application sought for quashing of the proceedings.

(3.) This was strongly opposed by the opposite party/State of West Bengal.