ACHARYA CITSVARUPANANDA AVADHUTA Vs. STATE OF WEST BENGAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition has been filed by the petitioners under Sec. 482 read with Sections 397 and 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as the Cr. P.C. for the sake of brevity) seeking quashment of the proceedings being G.R case No. 581 of 2013 arising out of Jaipur P.S case No. 54/13 dated 27.05.2013 under Sections 188/120B/506 of the Indian Penal Code in which charge-sheet No. 23 of 2014 dated 27.03.2014 has been filed in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Purulia Sadar against the present petitioners.

(2.) As per prosecution, the de facto complainant, Inspector of police, Arun Kumar Bagdi, I/C Jaipur P.S, lodged a suo motu complaint to the effect that in view of prevailing law and order situation and apprehending serious breach of peace during holding of the half yearly DMS from 24.05.2013 to 26.05.2013 by the followers of Ranchi Administration of Ananda Marga Pracaraka Sangha, the Sub-Divisional Executive Magistrate, Purulia issued a restraint order under Sec. 144(2) Cr. P.C. on 22.05.2013 restraining both the groups of Ananda Marga Pracaraka Sangha up to 27.05.2013 and such order was promulgated by serving upon both the groups on 23.05.2013. But about 150 followers of Ranchi Administration with the conspiracy of the present petitioners entered into the DMS grounds on 24.05.2013, 25.05.2013 and 26.05.2013 knowing fully well that the restraint order under Sec. 144 (2 Cr. P.C) was in force. They violated the order voluntarily, entered into the ground and stayed up to 26.05.2013. On the basis of such complaint Jaipur P.S case No. 54 of 2013 dated 27.05.2013 under Sec. 188/120B/506 Penal Code was registered. That case was investigated into and charge-sheet was submitted under Sec. 188/120B 506 Penal Code against the present petitioners.

(3.) Mr. Chatterjee, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners, argued that the allegations made in the suo motu complaint lodged by the I/C Jaipur P.S are absolutely false and concocted and even if those are accepted as it is, do not make out any case against the accused/petitioners nor do they constitute any offence against them. He further contended that the alleged order under Sec. 144(2) Cr. P.C) has been set aside in Criminal Revision No. 31 of 2013 by the learned Additional Sessions Judge 3rd Court, Purulia. Therefore, according to him, the instant proceeding is nothing but a sheer abuse of process of law and it is liable to be quashed.