Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)
Priyangu Pandey vs The State Of West Bengal & Ors on 3 April, 2025
Author: Tirthankar Ghosh
Bench: Tirthankar Ghosh
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
CONSTITUTIONAL WRIT JURISDICTION
APPELLATE SIDE
PRESENT:
THE HON'BLE JUSTICE TIRTHANKAR GHOSH
W.P.A. No. 31014 OF 2024
Priyangu Pandey
versus
The State of West Bengal & Ors.
For the Petitioners : Mr. Rajdeep Majumder, Sr. Adv.,
Mr. Moyukh Mukherjee, Adv.,
Mr. Abhijit Singh, Adv.,
Ms. Sagnika Banerjee, Adv.
For the State-Respondents : Mr. Kalyan Bandopadhyay, Sr. Adv.,
Mr. Jayanta Samanta, Adv.,
Mr. Biplab Guha, Adv.,
Mr. Rahul Singh, Adv.,
Mrs. Reshma Chatterjee, Adv.
Heard On : 18.03.2025
Judgement On : 03.04.2025
Tirthankar Ghosh, J. :
The present writ petition has been preferred challenging the continuance
of Bhatpara Police Station Case No. 708/24 dated 21.12.2024 which was
registered for investigation under Sections 126(2)/
2
121(1)/132/115(2)/118(1)/351(2)/189(2)/221 of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita
2023, against the petitioner along with others.
The allegations made in the written information submitted by one Asrajul
Islam, Sub-Inspector of Police attached to Detective Department, Barrackpore
Police Commissionerate were to the effect that they had been to the security
office of the building situated at the garage of multi-storeyed Building and were
interacting with the security namely one Madhusudan Dutta, certain
individuals identified themselves as flat owners, including one individual
claiming to be the Secretary of the Flat Owners Committee namely Chandan
Kumar Shaw, who challenged the investigation and behaved uncooperatively
despite being informed that the case was registered by the Chairman of
Bhatpara Municipality and was being investigated. The investigating team was
not allowed to continue the investigation and the accused person warned that
the investigation team will not be allowed to visit the place of occurrence. When
efforts were made to serve a notice under Section 179 of BNSS, to the
individuals they became violent, used filthy and abusive language and
obstructed the Police Officer from discharging their duty. Several persons
including outsiders and women assembled at the garage area and inspite of
repeated attempts to explain the legal necessity of investigation their behaviour
escalated into a riotous situation. Assistance was sought from the Officer-in-
Charge Bhatpara Police Station, who arrived at the spot with accompanying
officer and additional force, however, after repeated efforts by the Officer-in-
Charge to pacify the situation, the individuals, including several women,
3
continued their riotous behaviour and attacked the police thereby physically
assaulting police personnel. Some of the accused persons injured the Police
personnel by biting and also dragged the Officer-in-Charge by his uniform. This
resulted in injuries to several officers and force including the Investigating
Officer SI Asrajul Islam, Inspector Debasish Sarkar and Inspector Abid Hasan
of Detective Department Barrackpore Police Commissionerate as also Shri
Ardhenu Sekhar Desarkar, Officer-in-Charge Bhatpara Police Station, Sub-
Inspector Subrata Mondal of Bhatpara Police Station, Sub-Inspector Souvik
Biswas of Bhatpara Police Station, THG 890 Sumit Kumar Mondal, Constable
No. 481 Ranjit Das, I.C. 2480 Jasmina Biswas, Constable 1549 Amit Sasmol,
who were accompanying police personnel. The Officer-in-Charge, Bhatpara
Police Station in order to restore peace arrested two accused persons namely
Ashis Kumar Shaw and Chaman Singh for obstructing the Police Officers
discharging in their lawful duties and assaulting public servants for disruption
of the investigation process when the other accused persons namely Chandan
Kumar Shaw, Priyangu Pandey and Ananda Pandey fled away. He therefore
requested the Officer-in-Charge of Bhatpara Police Station to take legal action
under Sections 126(2)/121(1)132/115(2)/118(1)/351(2)/189(2)/221 of BNS
2023 against arrested accused persons namely Ashis Kumar Shaw, Chaman
Singh and also against accused Chandan Kumar Shaw, Priyangu Pandey and
Anand Pandey.
Mr. Majumder learned Senior Advocate appearing on behalf of the
petitioner submits that the petitioner is the proprietor of M/S Maa Enterprise
4
having its registered office within the jurisdiction of Bhatpara Municipality.
According to the learned advocate the initiation of the present case has its
roots in Bhatpara Police Station Case No. 669 of 2024 which was instituted
against the petitioner by one Reba Raha. Being aggrieved by the initiation of
Bhatpara Police Station Case No. 669 of 2024 petitioner challenged the same
before the Hon’ble High Court, Calcutta wherein in CRR 5241 of 2024 by an
order dated 12.12.2024 a direction was passed that no coercive steps be taken
against the petitioner subject to the petitioner cooperating with the
investigation of the case. The said order was extended from time to time. It was
submitted on behalf of the petitioner that a bare perusal of the allegations
levelled in the letter of complaint reveal that the instant proceeding was
initiated by misusing the provisions of criminal law which is based on frivolous
and baseless accusations. Petitioner contends that none of the allegations
made in the FIR would constitute any offence as far as the present petitioner is
concerned and the attending circumstances reflect that the instant proceeding
has been instituted with vexatious and malafide intention.
Learned Advocate appearing for the petitioner submits that he would
restrict his arguments on two issues. Firstly, that the allegations made against
the petitioner from bare perusal of the FIR and complaint fails to make out any
case and secondly, the attending circumstances reflect that the instant
case/proceeding has been instituted with vexatious and malafide intention. In
order to demonstrate the first contention so advanced, it has been submitted
that the provisions levelled against the petitioner are baseless and on perusal
5
of the complaint, particularly, the charge levelled against him, no case is made
out. It was reiterated that the genesis of the present case is Bhatpara Police
Station No. 669 of 2024, which was registered for investigation against the
petitioner and another leader from the party in opposition in the State of West
Bengal, wherein it was alleged that the present petitioner entered into an
agreement with Bhatpara Municipality for developing a property as per PPP
model. The said agreement was executed on 08.01.2016 between the Bhatpara
Municipality and company of the petitioner, which completed its work in the
year 2018 and the completion certificate as also no objection certificate in
respect of liquidation of loan for construction of flat under PPP model was
issued to M/s Maa Madhuri Enterprise on 24.03.2019. It was further
contended that Bhatpara Municipality only issued a notice to enter the said
premises, where the plot is empty and still unoccupied, which would be
reflected from the order passed in CRR 5241 of 2024. Additionally, it was
pointed out that on bare perusal of the FIR/complaint, no specific role has
been assigned to the petitioner other than merely stating that the petitioner
was present and there are several contradictions in the averments made in the
affidavit-in-opposition filed by the State respondents as well as the contents of
the written complaint. To that effect, it was stated that the purpose of visit of
the Police Officers at the place of occurrence reflects that the Police authorities
had been there for serving notices to other persons, on the other hand, in the
affidavit-in-opposition, it is stated that the Police authority went to serve notice
under Section 160 CrPC/Section 179 BNSS, 2023 upon the petitioner and the
6
same was inspite of the fact that the petitioner happens to be an FIR named
accused person, the FIR and the written complaint do not state any attack or
biting by the petitioner. However, the affidavit-in-opposition by the State
respondents refers to averments of biting by the petitioner, although the
injuries which have been referred to are simple in nature and the medical
reports so attached with the affidavit-in-opposition reflects that the alleged
mob was led by Chandan Shaw and biting marks were done by Anand Kumar
Pandey. The allegations as such against the petitioner do not in any manner
reflect that the petitioner has voluntarily inflicted any injury or grievous hurt
with any dangerous weapons or wrongfully restrained or obstructed the public
servants/ police from discharging their public functions. Other than merely
stating the presence of the petitioner, there was not a single averment or any
role stated against the petitioner or any overt act assigned against him in the
complainant. The entire dispute, even taken on its face value, fails to make out
any case against the petitioner and by no stretch of imagination constitute any
offence as alleged in the FIR and the FIR as such is a weapon of harassment for
institution of malafide proceedings at the behest of the complainant which calls
for interference by this Court.
Regarding the second argument put forth on behalf of the petitioner,
which asserts that the circumstances surrounding the case indicate that the
proceedings were initiated with vexatious and malafide intent, it was argued
that the initiation of the present case was motivated by a desire for revenge
7
against the petitioner for filing a case against Ichini Somnath Shyam, the son
of Reba Raha, who is the complainant in FIR No. 669 of 2024. To support this
argument, the petitioner has outlined several sub-categories, including the
following:
(a) The instant case has been instituted with malafide motive for wreaking
vengeance against the petitioner. – In order to substantiate such issue
petitioner contends that prior to Bhatpara Police Station Case No. 669 of 2024
being registered another case was instituted wherein the present petitioner was
attacked on 28.08.2024 under the direction and instruction of Ichini Somnath
Shyam and for which Bhatpara Police Station Case No. 509 of 2024 was
registered. It was alleged therein that the petitioner was attacked with sharp
edged weapons, bullets and explosive bombs. The action according to the
petitioner was at the behest of certain persons belonging to the ruling
dispensation under the direction of the said Ichini Somnath Shyam and
Bhatpara Police Station Case No. 509 of 2024 dated 28.08.2024 was registered
under Sections 189(2)/61(2)/126(2)/115(2)/118(1)/117(2)/109/324(4)/351(2)
of the BNS, 2023 read with Section 25/27 of the Arms Act read with Section
3/4 of the Explosive Substances Act. The said case was subsequently
transferred to the National Investigation Agency on 01.10.2024 consequent to
which FIR No. RC 14/2024/NIA /DLI dated 01.10.2024 was registered. The
said case refers to six named accused persons and sixteen miscreants.
8
(b) The complaint relating to Bhatpara Police Station Case No. 669 of 2024
was presented to the Police Station after an abnormal and inordinate delay and
was registered on the self-same day when the complaint was lodged. Petitioners
contended that after 6-7 years, suddenly Reba Raha came up with a complaint
of an incident of the year 2015-2016 and without conducting any preliminary
enquiry the police authority immediately registered the case on the same date
in gross violation of the judgment of the guidelines set out in the judgment of
the Hon’ble Apex Court in Lalita Kumari -v- State of U.P., (2014)2SCC1.
(c) Absence of the Investigating Officer of Bhatpara Police Station Case No.
669 of 2024 when it was alleged that investigation was being conducted on
21.12.2024, which are in the contents referred to in FIR No. 708 of 2024.
Although this point was initially taken up by the learned advocate on behalf of
the petitioner but subsequently learned advocate for the petitioner did not
pursue the issue orally when submitting his arguments, but has referred to the
same in the written notes of argument. At the time of arguments, State has
referred to the case diary and satisfied that the investigation of the case was
transferred to Detective Department Barrackpore Police Commissionerate and
was being dealt with by the new investigating officer namely Asrajul Islam.
(d) The provisions of 96(3) of BNSS, 2023 was not complied. It was argued
that in order to conduct investigation specially when the place of occurrence
was the office of M/s Maa Madhuri Enterprise, the police authorities ought to
have followed the procedures as laid down under Section 96(3) of BNSS 2023,
9
with a search warrant to be issued when visiting the place of occurrence, the
same not being there, it is doubtful that the police had authority to carry out
the investigation in connection with Bhatpara Police Station Case No. 669 of
2024.
(e) Notice under Section 160 CrPC/Section 179 BNSS was proposed to be
served upon the petitioner who is an FIR named accused. It was contended on
behalf of the petitioner that the presence of the police authorities were
mysterious and hazy in view of the overwhelming averments made in the
affidavit-in- opposition, that although the petitioner was an FIR named accused
person, yet the police authority intended to serve notice as it is required to be
served upon a witness in a case and not an accused. To that effect, reference
was made to Arnesh Kumar -v- State of Bihar, (2014)8SCC 273 and it was
submitted that there are specific provisions of serving notice upon the accused
persons and under the garb of any other Section an FIR named accused cannot
be served with a notice.
(f) The documents attached to the annexures in the affidavit-in-opposition
are contrary to the averments made by the respondent thereby reflecting that
the petitioner has been implicated in a criminal case with the sole purpose of
harassing and intimidating him. Attention of the Court was drawn to the
annexures/enclosures to the affidavit-in-opposition wherein medical
documents have been annexed by the State respondents for bringing it to the
notice of the Court relating to the injuries sustained. It was submitted that
10
there are no corroborating materials in respect of the medical documents and
in the absence of any corroboration, the statement relied upon by the State
cannot be the sole foundation of implicating the petitioner as the medical
documents if taken into consideration will show complicity of Anand Kumar
Pandey and Chandan Kumar Shaw and there was no role of the petitioner
which would reflect that the petitioner has any complicity in respect of the
allegations made in the FIR and his name has been incorporated by way of
wreaking vengeance with an ulterior motive because of the implication of the
said Ichini Somnath Shyam in the case registered by NIA. Lastly, it was
contended that the concept of malafide being dynamic, the Court should
appreciate the chronology of cases for implicating the petitioner in connection
with the instant case which would reflect that the act and action of the State is
a malafide act. Learned advocate in order to substantiate his contention has
relied upon the following judgments: Bikash Bej and ors vs the CBI with Farid
Saha and Ors. vs CBI, C.R.R 1474 of 2024 with C.R.R. No. 1510 of 2024; State
represented by Inspector of Police and others vs N.M.T Joy Immaculate, (2004) 5
SCC 729; Vineet Kumar and others vs State of Uttar Pradesh and another (2017)
13 SCC 369; Vivek Gupta Vs. State of West Bengal and Another, 2022 SCC
Online Cal 4134; Rajkumar Mondal @ Raja and Another Vs. State of West
Bengal, C.R.R 2917 of 2014; Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar and another, (2014)
8 SCC 273; State of Haryana Vs Bhajan Lal, 1992 SUPP (1) SC 335; Salib alias
shalu alias salim vs state of U.P and others, 2023 SCC Online SC 947; Haji Iqbal
alias Bala through S.P.O.A vs State of U.P and others 2023 SCC Online SC 948.
11
Mr. Kalyan Bandopadhyay, Learned Senior Advocate appearing on
behalf of the State at the very inception contented that Bhatpara Police
Station Case No. 669 of 2024 dated 28.11.2024 was registered for
investigation on the basis of a complaint lodged by the chairperson of
Bhatpara Municipality. Initially, the case was endorsed to Sub-Inspector
Manirul Mollah of Bhatpara Police Station for investigation. However, the
Commissioner of Police, Barrackpore Police Commissionerate, took up the
investigation of the case and Sub-Inspector Asrajul Islam of the Detective
Department, Barrackpore Police Commissionerate was assigned the
investigation. On 21st December 2024, at about 04:20 P.M. the
Investigating Officer, along with others of the Detective Department,
Barrackpore Police Commissionerate, including Officers associated with
Bhatpara Police Station, visited M/s Maa Madhuri Enterprise located at
BL-06, Kakinara under Bhatpara Police Station for the purposes of
investigation. When the investigation process was on, certain individuals
arrived at the location, identifying themselves as flat owners and
obstructed the police authorities from discharging their official duty. At
the relevant point of time, the petitioner also arrived and abused the
police officials, along with others, and to that effect, photographs of M/s
Maa Madhuri Enterprise along with the petitioner being present and
assaulting the police officers are available in the case diary. The incident
was reported to the Officer-in-Charge Bhatpara Police Station for
rendering assistance. Consequently, the Officer-in-Charge Bhatpara
12
Police Station, along with additional forces, arrived at the spot at about
6:50 P.M. and even after repeated efforts of the police officers for pacifying
the situation, the individuals, including several women, continued with
their riotous behaviour, use of abusive language, attacking the police
personnel and physically assaulting them. Some of the accused persons,
which included the petitioner, caused injuries to several police personnel
by assaulting and biting them. The Officer-in-Charge of Bhatpara Police
Station was also dragged when he was in uniform, and the unruly crowd
at the instigation of the petitioner caused injuries to several police
officials. To that effect, Learned Counsel has drawn the attention of the
Court to the injury reports available in the case diary. It was also
submitted that at the relevant point of time, two of the accused persons,
namely Ashis Kumar Shaw and one Chaman Singh could be arrested.
However, the petitioner, along with Chandan Kumar Shaw and Anand
Pandey fled away from the spot and it was only after the aforesaid three
persons fled away from the spot, the police officers could control the
situation. After the aforesaid incident, Sub-Inspector Asrajul Islam lodged
a complaint against Ashis Kumar Shaw, Chaman Singh, Chandan Kumar
Shaw, Priyangu Pandey (the petitioner herein), Anand Pandey and 45/50
others. Based on such complaint, Bhatpara Police Station Case No. 708
of 2024 dated 21st December 2024 was registered for investigation. In
course of investigation, from the statements of the arrested accused
persons, it came to light that the present petitioner Priyangu Pandey
13
gathered his followers and associates to resist the police from
investigating the case and the entire chaos was orchestrated by him to
obstruct the police so that the police would be unable to unearth the
truth in Bhatpara Police Station Case No. 669 of 2024.
To that effect Learned Senior Counsel has drawn the attention of the
Court to the relevant statement of the witnesses. The present writ petition
was preferred on 26th December, 2024 i.e. within 5 days of the
registration of Bhatpara Police Station Case number 708 of 2024. It was
contended that the investigation of Bhatpara Police Station Case No. 708
of 2024 is at a nascent stage even though the materials which have been
collected are sufficient for the investigation of the case to continue, as the
test of malafide which has been canvassed by the petitioner is not
attracted at this initial stage when the police authority has been
obstructed, assaulted, injured, dragged in uniform and has serious
repercussions so far as law and order is concerned. The existence of
previous cases are immaterial as the present case which is being
investigated related to infliction of bodily injuries and obstruction of the
public servants in discharging their official duties. Learned counsel
pointed out that nowhere it has been contended that the public servants
were not assaulted or they were not present at the spot, what has been
contended is a case of false implication with a malafide motive. On the
contrary the materials collected by the investigating agency within the
short span of five days before there was interference by the High Court
14
will speak for itself. In order to substantiate his contentions learned
Senior Advocate relied upon following judgments: Neeharika
Infrastructure (P) Ltd. -versus- State of Maharashtra, (2021)19 SCC 401;
State -versus- M. Maridoss, (2023) 4 SCC 338; State of Chhattisgarh –
versus- Aman Kumar Sing, (2023) 6 SCC 559, State of Maharashtra –
versus- Ishwar Piraji Kalpatri, (1996) 1 SCC 542; State of Orissa -versus-
Debendra Nath Padhi, (2005) 1 SCC 568.
Before addressing the submissions put forth by the learned counsel for
the petitioner, as well as the arguments presented by the State, it is crucial
to outline the pertinent facts to evaluate the petitioner’s request. Initially, a
case was registered under Bhatpara Police Station Case No. 509 of 2024 on
28.08.2024, involving the investigation of one Ichini Somnath Shyam, who
was alleged to have attacked the petitioner with sharp-edged weapons,
firearms, and explosive devices. This case was later transferred to the
National Investigation Agency on 01.10.2024. Thereafter, Bhatpara Police
Station Case No. 669 of 2024 was registered against the petitioner, with the
complainant being Reba Raha, the Chairman of Bhatpara Municipality and
mother of Ichini Somnath Shyam. In relation to this case, the Hon’ble High
Court, in CRR 5241 of 2024, issued an order directing that no coercive
action be taken against the petitioner, contingent on the petitioner’s
cooperation with the investigation. Subsequently, Bhatpara Police Station
Case No. 708 of 2024 was registered on 21.12.2024.
15
The question for this Court to resolve is whether the pendency of
Bhatpara Police Station Case Nos. 509 of 2024 and 669 of 2024 can be
considered a legitimate ground to allege malafide, thus necessitating
interference for quashing of the proceedings in Bhatpara Police Station
Case No. 708 of 2024.
In assessing the question of malafide, the Court must consider not
only the immediate circumstances but also the broader context of the case.
At the same time, the Court cannot disregard the evidence gathered by the
investigating agency, particularly since it had only nine days to carry out its
investigation. Further, it is to be determined whether the evidence gathered
is so compelling that, unless this Court steps in, there would be an abuse
of legal process, undermining the administration of justice. It is pertinent to
note that the request for quashing of proceedings is one that should be
exercised with utmost caution.
The criteria for evaluating the materials presented by an accused
invoking the inherent powers under Section 482 of the CrPC, Section 528 of
the BNSS, or Article 226 of the Constitution of India vary at different stages
of the proceedings. A material that may be pertinent at the stage of charge
consideration or during the final arguments, after the defense evidence has
been concluded, may not necessarily be relevant at the stage of seeking
quashing of the FIR.
The core issue here is to assess what materials were gathered by the
investigating agency within the nine-day span during which the
16
investigation in Bhatpara Police Station Case No. 708 of 2024 was
conducted, as documented in the case diary. Upon examining the case
diary, it is evident that it includes medical documents detailing the injuries
sustained by the police officers, along with their statements provided to the
doctor. Moreover, the case diary contains the statements of the injured
parties and witnesses. After reviewing these materials, I observe that the
name of the petitioner appears consistently across all relevant documents,
including the medical records and the statements made to the investigating
officer. These statements are explicit in identifying the petitioner as the
individual who led the mob, preventing the police from performing their
official duties and causing harm to them. As such, there is substantial
evidence against the petitioner, establishing his complicity in the offenses
leading to the registration of Bhatpara Police Station Case No. 708 of 2024
and the continuation of the investigation under Sections
126(2)/121(1)/132/115(2)/118(1)/351(2)/189(2)/221 of the Bharatiya
Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.
In view of the aforementioned conclusions, I find that the petitioner’s
prayers do not necessitate any interference from this Court.
Accordingly, W.P.A. No. 31014 of 2024 is dismissed.
Interim order, if any, stands vacated.
Pending connected application(s), if any, are also disposed of.
17
All parties shall act on the server copy of this judgment duly
downloaded from the official website of this Court.
Urgent photostat certified copy of this judgment, if applied for, be
supplied to the parties upon compliance of all requisite formalities.
(Tirthankar Ghosh, J.)
[ad_1]
Source link