[ad_1]
Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)
Reba Mondal & Anr vs Unknown on 26 August, 2025
26.08.2025
Court No.23
DL/Item No.- 73
[Milan, A.R. (Ct.)]
CRR 320 of 2011
In the matter of:
Reba Mondal & Anr.
None appears on behalf of either of the parties.
No accommodation is sought for.
This case is pending since 2011.
Considering the nature of prayer and the long pendency of the
case, this Court seems it would be appropriate to dispose of the
case on merits on the basis of materials available on records.
The petitioners have filed this application under Section 401
read with Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (in
short, “CrPC“), seeking quashing of the proceeding being CGR Case
No.3781 of 2006 arising out New Alipore Police Station Case no.182
dated 25.011.2007 under Sections 406/418/420/120B of the
Indian Penal Code (in short, “IPC“) now pending before the learned
Judicial Magistrate, 8th Court, Alipore, Sought 24 Parganas and also
challenged the order dated 23.11.2010 passed by the learned
Judicial Magistrate, 8th Court, Alipore, South 24 Parganas, thereby
the learned Trial Court has rejected the petitioner’s prayer for
discharge in connection with the aforesaid case.
While considering the application for discharge filed by the
petitioners, the learned Trial Court has observed as under:-
1) Every company has its own internal management which is
mentioned in the Articles of Association. The question as
to whether any Director of the Company can file any
2criminal case against the other director of the company
alleging financial defalcation is the subject matter of
adjudication and cannot be decided without trial.
2) The submission of the Ld. defence counsel as to the
existence of certain documents which are sufficient for
releasing them from being charged in a criminal
proceeding is also a subject matter of adjudication and
cannot be decided at the stage.
3) There are certain provisions as to the relevancy,
admissibility and production of any document as per
Indian Evidence Act. Without final adjudication of the case
nothing can be finally concluded as to the opinion that the
charge is groundless.
4) Without the completion of trial nothing can be concluded
as to whether all the witnesses being examined under
Section under 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure by
the investigating agency are interested witnesses or not. It
is also pertinent to note here that the evidential value of
any interested witness cannot be discarded in toto. In the
decision reported in 2003 Cr.L.J. Page 3876, it was held
that reliability of evidence of such witness cannot be
rejected merely because he is close relative of victim.
Court has to adopt a careful approach while analyzing the
evidence of such witness.
5) It is also settled principal of law that defect in the
investigation should not be a ground for discharging the
accused persons. In a decision reported in 2006 SCC (Cri)
page 534, it was held that defects in the investigation is
no ground to discredit testimony of eyewitnesses.
6) Place of occurrence may be two in case of offence
continuing to be happening within the same transaction of
the events and if there is any mistake by the recording
officer of the investing agency, then that mistake can not
be considered to be fatal to the case of the prosecution
and that also cannot be determined without the
conclusion of the trial.
3
7) Any person having knowledge over the cause of action can
start a criminal proceeding against the accused person.
There is no hard and first rule that the worst sufferer
should file the case.
8) Lastly, after considering the materials in the C.D., this
Court considers that there is sufficient Prima facie
material against the accused persons for framing of
charge.
The stands taken by the Trial Court are mostly found correct.
This Court finds no infirmity or gross illegality in the findings while
considering the prayer of the discharge of accused person at the
stage of consideration of charge.
Therefore, it calls for no interference. CRR 320 of 2011 is,
thus, dismissed.
Connected applications, if any, are also, thus, disposed of.
Interim order, if any, stands vacated.
Let a copy of this order be communicated to the learned trial
Court for information and taking necessary steps.
All parties shall act on the basis of a server copy of this order
duly downloaded from the official website of this Court without
insisting upon production of a certified copy thereof.
Urgent photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for, be
given to the parties upon compliance of all necessary legal
formalities.
(Ajay Kumar Gupta, J.)
[ad_2]
Source link