PRADEEP DUTTA BHOWMIK Vs. STATE OF TRIPURA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an application under Section 482 read with Section 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 and/or under Art. 227 of the Constitution of India for quashing the order dated 23-5-1998 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, West Tripura, Agartala in which the Officer-in-charge, West Agartala P.S. was directed to treat the complaint petition of the Opposite Party (for short 'O.P.') No. 2 as F.I.R. and for registration of the F.I.R. No. West Agartala P.S. 134/1998 under Sections 380/ 454/448/467/468/471/120B /34 of I.P.C.

(2.) Shorn of details the material facts of the case may be stated : : The O.P. No. 2 who is the wife of Late Bhupendra Dutta Bhowmik, filed a complaint petition on 23-5-1998 before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, West Tripura, Agartala against the petitioners for commission of the aforesaid offences. The learned C.J.M. forwarded the complaint to the O/C., West Agartala P.S. with a remark in the margin of the complaint petition, to treat the complaint as F.I.R. and to take up investigation as per provision of Section 156(3), of Cr.P.C. on the same day. The allegation of the O.P. No. 2 in the complaint petition is that the petitioner No. 7 along with some other conspirators removed the golden ornaments, jems and jewelleries, valuable documents such as life insurance policy and security from the steel almirah and steel locker when she was absent on 8-9-1997 and 9-9-1997. It is stated by the O.P. No. 2 that the aforesaid articles were kept in her custody, in her bed room at 3rd Floor and the editorial chamber at the 1st floor of "Dainik Sambad Bhawan" at Agartala. It would appear that on the basis of the aforesaid complaint as directed by the learned C.J.M. West Tripura, Agartala, a regular case, i.e. West Agartala P.S. Case No. 134/1998 under the aforesaid sections of I.P.C. was registered and Shri Kshitish Debnath, S.I. of Police was initially entrusted to investigate the case. It is the case of the petitioners that though two Investigating Officers have so far examined each of the petitioners and the statements of the so called witnesses were recorded long time back yet the police has not filed the charge-sheet in the Court. The Investigating Officer, Sri A.K. Roy however, filed an application before the learned C.J.M. on 8-8-2001 with a prayer to dispose of the case on the basis of the investigation completed so far and allowing him to reopen the case if any foul-play was found in future by the members of the Trustee of the said Will executed by deceased Bhupendra Datta Bhowmik. But the learned C.J.M. has not passed any order on the basis of the said application of the Investigating Officer. It is stated by the petitioners that the genuineness of the Will dated 6-8-1997 executed by deceased Bhupendra Datta Bhowmik is now pending before the learned District Judge, West Tripura, Agartala in Misc. Probate 6/1997. It is submitted by the petitioners that the allegations made in the complaint petition are purely of a civil nature and as such a criminal proceeding does not lie and that the proper remedy lies in the Civil Court. It is also submitted by the petitioners that there is no prima facie case against them, jointly or singly and that the learned C.J.M. has failed to apply his mind and mechanically directed the O/C, West Agartala P.S. to treat the complaint petition as FIR and registered a regular case. It is further submitted by the petitioners that the main allegations against the petitioners of opening an Almirah and taking ornaments, valuable documents, certificates etc. having been not proved and further that the genuineness of the Will yet to be decided by the learned District Judge, the continuation of the criminal proceeding against them is illegal, capricious, arbitrary and violative of Article 21 of the Constitution of India.

(3.) I have heard Mr. A. K. Bhowmik, learned senior counsel, assisted by Mr. D. Guha, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners and Mr. A. Ghosh, learned Public Prosecutor as well as Mr. S. Chakraborty, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents.