Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)
Hemendra Mullick vs The State Of West Bengal & Another on 23 April, 2025
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
CRIMINAL REVISIONAL JURISDICTION
Appellate Side
Present:
The Hon'ble Justice Ajay Kumar Gupta
C.R.R. 2735 of 2022
Hemendra Mullick
Versus
The State of West Bengal & Another
The
For the Petitioner : Mrs. Baisali Ghoshal, Adv.
For the State : Ms. Faria Hossain, Adv.
Mr. Asif Dewan, Adv.
Heard on : 04.04.2025
Judgment on : 23.04.2025
Ajay Kumar Gupta, J:
1.
This instant Criminal Revisional application under Section
482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 has been filed by the
2
petitioner seeking for quashing of the proceeding being G.R. Case No.
554 of 2022 arising out of Chandannagar P.S. Case No. 96 of 2022
dated 17.04.2022 under Sections 341/420/406/504/506/34 of the
Indian Penal Code, 1860 pending before the Court of the Learned
Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Chandannagar, Hooghly.
2. The brief facts are relevant for the purpose of disposal of this
case, are as under:
2a. On 2nd April, 2022, the opposite party no. 2 herein filed an
application under Section 156(3) of CrPC before the Learned
Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Chandannagar, Hooghly being
C.R. Case No. 85 of 2022 alleging, inter alia, therein that on
19.01.2022, when the complainant was returning to his house, the
FIR named accused persons along with some others stopped him at
the adjacent road of his house. They threatened him with dire
consequences. The accused no. 2 along with others cheated him in
business by way of manufactured documents and deed of business
and thereby they committed offence punishable under Sections
2b. The Learned Magistrate, after hearing, was pleased to allow
the said application filed by the opposite party no. 2 and directed the
concerned police station to register an FIR as such, an FIR has been
3
registered being Chandannagar P.S. Case No. 96 of 2022 dated
17.04.2022 under Sections 341/420/406/504/506/34 of the Indian
Penal Code, 1860 against two accused persons including the present
petitioner. Subsequently, after culmination of investigation, a charge
sheet being Charge Sheet No. 96/22 dated 30.04.2022 under
Sections 341/420/406/504/506/34 of IPC has been submitted
against the accused persons including petitioner as accused no. 2.
2c. Whereas, the contention of the petitioner is that the present
petitioner is aged about 78 years old. His actual name is Hemendra
Mullick. However, the opposite party no. 2 with mala fide intention
indicated his name as Hemandra Mallick and age mentioned
wrongfully as 57 years old. He is the owner of the property where
shop (alleged property) situated at Burra Bazar, Room No. NG-1, on
ground floor of 64, Netaji Subhash Road, P.S. Burra Bazar, Kolkata
700 001.
2d. The tenancy of the alleged property was in the name of
Ashok Sheth and Sudhir Sheth, the father of accused no. 1, namely,
Surajit Sheth. Sudhir Sheth expired and due to his demise, accused
no. 1 Surajit Sheth became the tenant as a legal heir in place of late
Sudhir Sheth and the said tenancy is now in the name of Ashok
Sheth and Surajit Sheth, Son of Late Sudhir Sheth. His name was
4
incorporated in the tenancy receipt on the basis of no objection given
by other legal heirs of Sudhir Sheth. Petitioner being the owner of the
tenanted premises has nothing to do with the business carried on in
the tenanted portion. Therefore, he has been falsely implicated into
this case. Allegation is out and out false. Hence, this Criminal
Revisional application.
3. None appears on behalf of the opposite party no. 2. No
accommodation has been sought for.
4. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State
produced the case diary and submitted that during investigation, it
reveals Petitioner is the owner of the tenanted shop room. He has
changed or mutated the name of accused no. 1 after the demise of
one of erstwhile tenants as such, dispute arises.
DISCUSSION AND FINDINGS BY THIS COURT:
5. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties and on
perusal of the case diary as well as record, this Court finds it is
admitted fact that the present petitioner is the owner of the tenanted
premises and he was/is no way involved in the business of
proprietorship or partnership business of the family of the accused
no. 1 and/or the opposite party no. 2.
5
6. From the perusal of the case diary, it reveals that a
partnership deed dated 1st April, 1996 was seized by the investigating
officer and the said deed was executed by and between Ashok Kumar
Sett, son of Shri Pushupati Sett and Sri Sudhir Kumar Sett, son of
Shri Pashupati Sett. The name and style of the business was carried
on as M/s. P. Sett & Sons having its office situate at 64, N.S. Road,
Calcutta – 1.
7. The said business was totally under the control of Ashok
Kumar Sett and Sri Sudhir Kumar Sett. After demise of Sudhir
Kumar Sett, his legal heir Surajit Sett became the tenant. He applied
for mutating his name as a tenant in place of his father to the
landowner. No objection had been given by other legal heirs. On the
basis of said no objection, the landlord/petitioner herein incorporated
the name of Ashok Kumar Sett and Surajit Sett in the rent receipt.
Even for the sake of arguments, changing name of the tenant is a
nature of civil dispute and no concern with the business affairs. He
was/is no way either involved or connected in the business
transactions.
8. It further reveals from the complaint that general and vague
allegations have been made against the present petitioner without
any supporting evidence. He has no role to play in the business.
6
Being the landlord, he is not involved in any manner of the offence as
alleged by the de-facto complainant. Mere vague and general
allegations would not suffice to make him accused in the instant
case. There must be specific allegation with regard to his role or
involvement in the alleged offence and thereby ingredient also must
be fulfilled otherwise initiation of proceeding would be an abuse of
process of law.
9. We should not forget at this moment the well-settled law
declared by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of State of
Haryana & Ors. vs. Bhajanlal & Ors.1 which has laid down the
basic points for consideration pursuant to which a complaint may be
entertained in accordance with law before a Court of law. The Hon’ble
Court has narrated down as to when the extraordinary power of this
Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973
may be espoused. Relevant portion thereof may beneficially be quoted
herein below: –
“102. This Court in the backdrop of interpretation of
various relevant provisions of CrPC under Chapter XIV
and of the principles of law enunciated by this Court in
a series of decisions relating to the exercise of the
extraordinary power under Article 226 of the1
AIR 1992 SUPREME COURT 604 : 1992 Supp. (1) Supreme Court Cases 335
7Constitution of India or the inherent powers under
Section 482 CrPC gave the following categories of cases
by way of illustration wherein such power could be
exercised either to prevent abuse of the process of the
court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice. Thus,
this Court made it clear that it may not be possible to
lay down any precise, clearly defined and sufficiently
channelised and inflexible guidelines or rigid formulae
and to give an exhaustive list to myriad kinds of cases
wherein such power should be exercised:
(1) Where the allegations made in the first
information report or the complaint, even if they are
taken at their face value and accepted in their
entirety do not prima facie constitute any offence or
make out a case against the accused.
(2) Where the allegations in the first information
report and other materials, if any, accompanying
the FIR do not disclose a cognizable offence,
justifying an investigation by police officers under
Section 156(1) of the Code except under an order of
a Magistrate within the purview of Section 155(2) of
the Code.
(3) Where the uncontroverted allegations made in
the FIR or complaint and the evidence collected in
support of the same do not disclose the commission
of any offence and make out a case against the
accused.
8
(4) Where the allegations in the FIR do not
constitute a cognizable offence but constitute only a
non-cognizable offence, no investigation is
permitted by a police officer without an order of a
Magistrate as contemplated under Section 155(2) of
the Code.
(5) Where the allegations made in the FIR or
complaint are so absurd and inherently improbable
on the basis of which no prudent person can ever
reach a just conclusion that there is sufficient
ground for proceeding against the accused.
(6) Where there is an express legal bar engrafted in
any of the provisions of the Code or the Act
concerned (under which a criminal proceeding is
instituted) to the institution and continuance of the
proceedings and/or where there is a specific
provision in the Code or the Act concerned,
providing efficacious redress for the grievance of
the aggrieved party.
(7) Where a criminal proceeding is manifestly
attended with mala fide and/or where the
proceeding is maliciously instituted with an ulterior
motive for wreaking vengeance on the accused and
with a view to spite him due to private and
personal grudge.”
9
10. In the light of above discussions made by this Court and in
view of observation made by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the above
cited judgment, this Court fully satisfies that this case falls in the
Categories mentioned in 1 , 3, 5 and 7 above.
11. Accordingly, CRR No. 2735 of 2022 is allowed. Connected
applications, if any, are also, thus, disposed of.
12. Consequently, proceeding being G.R. Case No. 554 of 2022
arising out of Chandannagar P.S. Case No. 96 of 2022 dated
17.04.2022 under Sections 341/420/406/504/506/34 of the Indian
Penal Code, 1860 pending before the Court of the Learned Additional
Chief Judicial Magistrate, Chandannagar, Hooghly is hereby quashed
insofar as the petitioner is concerned.
13. Let a copy of this Judgment be sent to the Learned Trial
Court for information.
14. Case Diary is to be returned to the learned counsel
appearing on behalf of the State.
15. Interim order, if any, stands vacated.
10
16. Urgent photostat certified copy of this Judgment, if applied
for, is to be given as expeditiously to the parties on compliance of all
legal formalities.
(Ajay Kumar Gupta, J)
P. Adak (P.A.)
[ad_1]
Source link