ARPITA GUIN Vs. STATE OF WEST BENGAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner has assailed the proceedings in G.R. Case No. 35 of 2012 in connection with Kankortola Police Station Case No. 16 of 2012 dated 25.01.2012 under Sections 323/326/506/308 of the Indian Penal Code in which case the Investigating Officer submitted final report on completion of the investigation. Background facts leading to the instant application is that the petitioner an assistant teacher of Barhra High School, District- Birbhum, was illegally and arbitrarily disturbed by the school authority by not allowing her to work smoothly and properly and not giving permission to acquire higher qualification and even not regularizing her study leave and no arrangement made to avail her own provident fund facility. Her salary was withheld without any reason. The petitioner was residing in the locality of the school alone, so she applied for general transfer but no cooperation was extended to her by the school authority. So she approached the Hon'ble Court and pursuant to an order of the Hon'ble Court, the West Bengal Central School Service Commission recommended her name for transfer to a school at Dum Dum, North 24 Parganas by issuing appointment letter in her favour but till date school authority did not issue release order deliberately in spite of her repeated prayer. During pendency of the litigation in the High Court, school authority frequently disturbed the petitioner in her normal work and on protest threat held out with the consequences and for that she lodged several complaints to all the authorities.

(2.) It is submitted that a large number of guardians of the said school as well as the Secretary, President and other members of the Managing Committee lodged a detail complaint for an unlawful activities of the Teacher-in-charge who was also the Upo-Prodhan of Barhra Gram Panchayat where the school is situated. Since he is a politically influential person, nobody took any steps. Immediately, after the said complaint was lodged, Anisur Rahaman, a local school teacher was murdered on 28.5.20112. Teacher-in-charge being the accused, was arrested and detained in the custody for about one month in connection with Khayrasole P.S. Case No. 42/2012 dated 29.5.2012 but he got released on bail and joined duty as usual but no proceeding was started against him. As the petitioner had lodged complaint to different authority against Teacher-in-charge of the school, one Kanchan Adhikari tried to lower down the prestige and dignity of the petitioner in the society and on 18th November, 2011 when she was performing her duty in the school, some people of the locality politically influenced and motivated by the Teacher-in- charge assaulted her in the school premises in presence of all the teaching and non-teaching staff and threatened with the consequences. The petitioner rushed to the Police Station and lodged a specific complaint at about 12.45 at noon, but the duty Officer deliberately waited till 1.00 P.M. and then registered the complaint as GDE No. 557 of 2011 dated 18.11.2011. It is alleged that the Duty Officer contacted with the school authority and subsequently lodged a false complaint against the petitioner. On the basis of the said complaint no P.S. Case was registered but surprisingly on 25th January, 2012 one Sk. Fazle Karim lodged a false complaint against her before the learned Judicial Magistrate, alleging, inter alia, that on 18.11.2011 after completion of the first period, at 11.30 A.M., the petitioner had assaulted the ward, namely, Asif Akram outside the classroom causing injury as a result he returned to his house and told entire incident to his parents and he was taken to Barhra Health Centre for treatment but he was instructed to go to Suri for his necessary treatment. The complainant returned to Barhra High School and met the Teacher- in-charge and as per his instruction he went to a doctor at Suri for treatment and a GDE No. 555 dated 18.11.2011 was registered on the basis of alleged written complaint.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the sequence of facts alleged in the complaint dated 25.1.2012 will reveal that one has to travel at least 100 kilometers from the place of incident to reach at Kankartola Police Station as it will take three hours journey but the said complaint was recorded at the said Police Station before 1 P.M. as such there is a gap of 1 Hr. 15 minutes which is next to impossible. This fact is evident from the copy of the track record of distance travelled by the complainant before lodging the complaint. It is also to be noted that the injury report shows that the alleged incident of assault took place at 11.00 A.M. but the complaint dated 25.01.2012 shows that the alleged incident took place after 11.30 A.M. in which it has been alleged that complainant had been to Barhra Health Centre and the victim boy was treated by Nakrakonda Block Primary Health Centre (BPHC) but the complaint dated 25.01.2012 is completely different from the said statement. The learned Judicial Magistrate, Dubrajpur directed the concerned P.S. to treat the complaint dated 25.01.2012 as FIR on the basis of which Kankartola Police Station Case No. 16 of 2012 dated 25.01.2012 under Sections 323/326/506/308 of the Indian Penal Code was started and on completion of the investigation final report on 29.02.2012 was submitted. In the said final report a Naraji petition was filed before the learned Court and reinvestigation was ordered. Then a charge sheet vide charge sheet no. 80/12 was submitted. The learned Magistrate has failed to appreciate the circumstances while taking cognizance of the offences alleged against the present petitioner because the complaint is with preplanned conspiracy. Accordingly, the petitioner has sought to quash the proceeding. It would appear from the order dated 11.4.2019 that as per the submission of the learned Advocate for the defacto complainant, the G.D. No. 557 of 2011 dated 18.11.2011 was at 4.00 hrs. whereas the petitioner accused claimed that G.D. No. 557 was at 1.00 P.M., accordingly, Investigating Officer was directed to collect and produce those G.D. book on the next date fixed but the I.O. of the case on the subsequent dated on 01.5.2019 reported that the G.D. books were retained at the old building and some old documents containing said G.D.E books were damaged by white ants. The report of the I.O. was not accepted as truth. So this Court gave further direction to trace out the G.D.E books because there was least scope of the same being damaged or eaten by the white ants. On 28th May, 2019 when the matter came up for hearing the Officer-in-charge Kankortola P.S., Birbhum submitted his report that he had collected the G.D. book in Xerox in respect of the said G.D. No. 555 dated 18.11.2011 from the office of the C.I. Dubrajpur on the next date fixed 11.6.2019. In compliance of the Courts order, the Officer-in-charge Kankortola P.S. was personally present with report dated 1st May, 2019 with similar report that the said G.D.E books were damaged by white ants without tracing G.D.E books. This Court took a very serious note of the fact that G.D.E books were not properly preserved by the local Police. There is, indeed, a doubt created for not having produced the G.D.E books to ascertain the allegation as made by the petitioner that her complaint was earlier in point of time. So, adverse presumption arose in respect of the initiation of the case as against the petitioner given the background of facts discussed above. That apart, it would reveal that the case was started on the basis of a petition under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. for investigation. Such investigation was ordered without any preliminary inquiry into the allegation and without compliance of Section 154(1) and Section 154(3) of the Cr.P.C.