RAM SHANKAR HAZRA Vs. STATE OF WEST BENGAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD the learned Counsel for the petitioner further as well as the learned Counsel appearing for the State.

(2.) IT has been contended by the learned Counsel for the petitioner that over the selfsame occurrence, there was two FIR lodged on the basis of the complaint of Smt. Bula Paramanik, wife of deceased Debu Paramanik, chinsurah, P. S. case No. 244 dated 22. 7. 1996 under Section 342/304 of the Indian Penal Code was started and during investigation of that case, the charge-sheet has been submitted against the present petitioner and others under Section 342/177/193/196 of the Indian Penal Code. In respect of the self-same occurrence on the basis of the direction of Human Rights commission, a case was started against the present petitioner Ram Shankar hazra, O/c, Chinsurah, P. S. under Section 342/466/471 of the Indian Penal code and the case was started on the basis of the second FIR lodged as per the observation of the Human Rights Commission cannot be proceeded with and the said case being Chinsurah, P. S. case No. 218 of 1997 dated 18. 6. 1997 under Section 342/467/471 of the Indian Penal Code is required to be quashed by invoking the inherent power of the Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

(3.) THE learned Counsel for the petitioner has further contended that the facts and circumstances of this case are almost covered by the case in t. T. Antony v. State of Kerala and Ors. , reported in 2001 SCR (Criminal) at page 602. He has further contended that as per FIR in Chinsurah P. S. Case no. 244 dated 22. 7. 1996 under Section 342/304 of the Indian Penal Code, there was clear allegation of wrongful confinement and culpable homicide of the husband of the de facto complainant Smt. Bula Paramanik. Whereas, human Rights Commission after enquiry found that the present petitioner ram Shankar Hazra, O/c, Chinsurah P. S. , kept the accused i. e. the deceased illegally detained and unaccounted for from the Morning of 10. 7. 96 to 11. 7. 96 till 21. 05 hours and he fabricated and manipulated the g. D. entries in the P. S. to support his theory of arrest of the accused much later then when it was actually done. There was also recommendation of the Human Rights Commission in the said report that the investigation in the Chinsurah P. S. , Case No. 244 of 1996 dated 22. 7. 1996 under Section 342/304 of the Indian Penal Code was started on the complaint of Smt. Bula Paramanik, wife of deceased Debu Paramanik should be entrusted through C. I. D. and accordingly the C. I. D. took up the investigation in the chinsurah P. S. Case No. 244 and submitted charge-sheet under Section 342/177/193/196 of the Indian Penal Code. So, the allegations of wrongful confinement and fabrication and manipulation of the documents as alleged by the Human Rights Commission were taken into consideration of the investigation of the Chinsurah P. S. , Case No. 244 by the C. I. D. and the c. I. D. found prima facie case under Section 193/196 of the Indian Penal code also which relates to fabrication or manipulation of the documents and consequently, when the charge-sheet submitted in the Chinsurah P. S. Case No. 244 is sufficient as regards the complaint by the Human Rights commission as to illegal confinement of the deceased and fabrication of documents, there is no question of continuance of the investigation in the chinsurah P. S. Case No. 218 of 1997 and that case should be quashed.