JAMUNA Vs. S PANJA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Revisional Application is directed for quashing a criminal proceeding being case No. C 592 of 1983 u/s. 342 I.P.C. pending before the learned Judicial Magistrate 1st class, Howrah. Petitioners case in brief is the that one Dilip Kumar Chatterjee as Welfare Officer, Fort Willium Co. filed petition of complaint before the learned S.D.J.M, Howrah against the petitioner. On 3.5.1983 at about 9 A.M. the petitioners along with few others started an agitation on various demands in front of the office of the Chief Welfare Officer. It was alleged that they entered the office wrongfully and wrongfully confined the Chief Welfare Officer and two other officers. The Chief Welfare Officer and other two Welfare Officers, the said Dilip Chatterjee and O.P. No. 1 were denied from movement. Ultimately they were rescued by police officer. From order dated 13.5.83 it appears that the learned J.M. 1st class, Howrah to whom this case was transferred for disposal by the S.D.J.M, was pleased to examine the complainant and his witnesses and he took cognizance of the offence and directed issue of summons for appearance of the petitioner. It further appears that after the aforesaid order was passed one application was filed by O.P. No. 1 describing himself as Chief Welfare Officer of the said company stated that the Welfare Officer of the said firm who lodged the complaint on behalf of the company and Shri Panja have been examined as witnesses in the case. As the company has declared lock out and Sri panja was residing within the Mill compoundT and the complainant was residing outside, he will face difficulty in attending the court. Therefore he prayed for substitution of his name as complainant in place of original complainant. The learned Magistrate allowed the prayer. Mr. S.S. Roy appearing for the petitioner has submitted that this order passed by the learned Magistrate is bad in law inasmuch as Cr. P.C. has made no provisio for such substitution. He further submitted that since after such substitution the entire proceeding has become bad in law as no case can proceed in the absence of the original complainant, in this case Dilip Kumar Chatterjee.

(2.) Mr. Bhattacharjee appearing for the O.P. has submitted that from the submission of the petitioner it appears that the offending order is the order dated 13.5.1983. Since the petitioner did not challenge the order earlier, it has become barred limitation. Mr. RoyTs reply to this submission is that since he has prayed for quashing the proceeding the application is not barred by limitation. Mr. Bhattacharjee referred to me to a decision reported in 1981 Criminal Law Times Vol-VIlI page 414. In the said decision Punjab and Haryana High Court held that when according to the provision of section 397 of Cr. P.C. the petitioner could have moved the Court in Revision against an order it is not competent for him to invoke the inherent power of the High Court under section 482 of the Code. From the facts of this case it appears that the petitioners allowed the proceedings to continue for more than 18 months. They did not take any steps. Thereafter they suddenly woke up and filed this application for quashing. Relied section 482 being a discretionary relief should not be granted to a person who has deliberately delayed in coming to the court and has also failed to file an application under section 397 of the Cr. P.C. Accordingly I hold that this application should not be entertained.

(3.) On merit I also do not find much substance in this application. In .criminal Revision case No. 875 of 1983 Amiya Kumar Nandi and 7 others vs. Baghuraj Bahadur and Anr. under similar circumstances, it was held that since the original complainant did not file the complaint in his personal capacity but only represented company allowing another person to act as complainant is not an order which can be called, improper or illegal. On the facts of this case it also appears that the complaint Dilip Kumar Chatterjee filed the complaint on behalf of the company and O.P. No. 1 only sought for the permission of the court to be treated as complainant for the purpose of the carriage of the proceedings only. In fact a complainant in this case was Fort Willium Co. Ltd. Therefore there was no illegality or impropriety in the order passed. CALCUTTA HIGH CQURT Page 3 of 3