SUSHOVAN DAS GUPTA Vs. STATE OF WEST BENGAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By the instant application the petitioner has challenged the order dated 30th Nov., 2016 passed by the learned Judge, Special Court, 3rd Court, Barasat in Special Case No. 20 of 2014 corresponding to G.R No. 3249 of 2012 arising out of Nimta P.S. Case No. 230 of 2012 dated 25th July, 2012 under sections 406/408/409 Penal Code whereby the petitioner's application under section 173(8) of the Code of Criminal Procedure seeking further investigation in the aforesaid case was rejected after hearing the learned counsel for the parties.

(2.) The facts in brief leading to the present application may be summarized as follows:

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner sought to impress that the investigation was partial, perfunctory and shoddy. To shield the real offenders, investigation was conducted in an unfair manner. It is canvassed that the minutes of the meetings of the Managing Committee during the relevant period, which were not seized during investigation, would establish that the discharged accused is also responsible for the financial scam. It is contended that the opposite party no. 6 has been discharged by the investigating agency on the ground that he had no authority to sign the cheques but the enquiry report reveals that the opposite party no. 6/discharged accused, who was then the Assistant Head Master of the said school, was the custodian of the school accounts. Referring to the enquiry report at page 87 and 88 of the application, it is pointed out that payments were released with the help of the discharged accused who used the cheques signed by the Head Master of the school. Learned counsel pointed out that the investigating agency deliberately overlooked the fact that the anticipatory bail prayer of the discharged accused was rejected by this Court on the ground that there was sufficient material against him. It is strenuously argued that the opposite party no. 6/discharged accused is directly involved in the offence of misappropriation of school funds and it is a fit case for further investigation. In support of his argument reliance has been placed on Vinay Tyagi versus Irshad Ali @Deepak and others, 2013 5 SCC 762 and Pooja Pal versus Union of India and others, 2016 1 SCC(Cri) 743. On the point of the petitioner's locus standi to seek further investigation, it has rightly been contended that anyone can set the criminal law in motion except where the statute enacting or creating an offence indicates to the contrary. The petitioner as an assistant teacher of the said school is concerned about the misappropriation of school funds and is affected by the order of discharge of the opposite party no. 6. To fortify his submissions, learned counsel for the petitioner relied on A.R. Antulay versus Ramdas Sriniwas Nayak and another, 1984 2 SCC 500 (paragraph 6), Amanullah and another versus State of Bihar and others, 2016 6 SCC 699 (paragraph 19) and Ratanlal versus Prahlad Jat and others, 2017 9 SCC 340 (paragraphs 8, 9 and 10). It is canvassed that the petitioner is a victim as defined in Sec. 2(wa) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Therefore it has erroneously been observed in the impugned order that the petitioner, not being the defacto complaint or the aggrieved person has no locus standi to pray for further investigation.