Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)
Sanjay Kumar Singhania vs The State Of West Bengal & Anr on 13 June, 2025
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
(Criminal Revisional Jurisdiction)
Appellate Side
Present:
Justice Bibhas Ranjan De
C.R.R. 3696 of 2016
(Assigned)
Sanjay Kumar Singhania
Vs.
The State of West Bengal & Anr.
For the Petitioners :Mr. Sabyasachi Banerjee, Sr. Adv.
Mr. Ayan Bhattacharjee, Sr. Adv.
Mr. Rajesh Upadhyay, Adv.
Mr. Akshay Kumar Jain Sukhant, Adv.
For the State :Mr. Rana Mukherjee, Ld. APP.
Mr. Saryati Datta, Adv.
Mr. Sachit Talukdar, Adv.
Last Heard on :15.05.2025
Judgment on :13.06.2025
2
Bibhas Ranjan De, J.
1. The petitioner being one of the Directors of a Company
under the name and style of Cygnus Developers (India)
Private Limited (hereinafter referred to as Company) has
preferred the instant application under Section 482 of the
Code of Criminal Procedure (for short CrPC) with a prayer for
quashment of the proceeding being GR Case No. 2738 of
2014 arising out of Hare Street Police Station Case no. 690 of
2014 dated 11.12.2014 under Sections
467/468/471/420/379/411/120B of the Indian Penal Code
(for short IPC) presently pending before the Court of Ld. Chief
Metropolitan Magistrate, Calcutta.
Factual backdrop of this case:-
2. According to the petitioner the instant criminal prosecution
must be adjudicated after cumulative evaluation of the
gradual progression of certain factual scenarios which in a
nutshell are to the effect that the Company was assigned a
property admeasuring about 2 bighas, 18 cottahs, 15
chittacks and 15 sq.ft at the consideration of Rs. 30 lacs by
way of a deed of conveyance dated 04.09.2008 through the
3
official liquidator of the High Court. During the mutation
proceedings before the concerned B.L. & LRO, it was noted
that the total area of land was comprised in Dag Nos.
2580(P), 2586, 2583(P), 2584/2731(P) and Khatian Nos.
514(P),592,695,795 respectively. But in the said deed the
Dag Nos. 2583 (part) & 2584/2731 (part) were not
mentioned. Because of omission of the said dag numbers the
petitioner was not able to record the entire land in the record
of rights. Although, such mutation proceedings were initiated
at the behest of the petitioner only after he received the
delivery of the registered deed of conveyance from the
registry office by producing the requisite IGR. Thereafter, the
Company filed an application before this Court for
incorporation of the missing dag numbers of the schedule of
the deed of conveyance which was registered as CA No. 327
of 2014 wherein a report was called for by this Hon’ble Court
from the concerned B.L. & LRO to ascertain the issue of
missing dag numbers. In accordance with the direction, a
report was submitted by the Registering Authority which
ratified the plea of missing dag numbers. Therefore, this
Hon’ble Court vide an order dated 01.08.2014 permitted the
4
petitioner to get a supplemental deed of conveyance and/or a
rectification deed. Afterwards in consonance with the solemn
order of this Court when the representative of the Company
went to the concerned office for the purpose of registering the
supplementary/rectification deed, the Additional Registrar of
Assurances -I, Kolkata ( for short ARA -I) asked the
representative of the petitioner to produce the original deed
of conveyance. Upon production of the same, allegedly ARA-I
confiscated the said deed and made a complaint to the
officer-in-charge of the Hare Street Police Station dated
17.10.2014 alleging inter alia that the said deed had been
taken out prior to its admission and without the knowledge
or consent of the office of ARA-I and in addition to that deficit
stamp duty and registration fees were also not paid. Based
on the aforesaid complaint the impugned criminal proceeding
arose. Afterwards, this Hon’ble Court in terms of the earlier
order dated 08.01.2014 passed in connection with CA No.
667 of 2014 directed the Registering Authority through an
order dated 06.02.2015 to immediately register and
complete the instrument presented on 04.09.2008 and upon
registration of the original deed of conveyance, the deed of
5
rectification was also to be carried out within three weeks
from the date of original deed of conveyance. Being aggrieved
with the said order, the State Authorities preferred appeal
A.P.O.T No. 101 of 2015 and A.P.O 150 of 2015, wherein the
Hon’ble Division Bench affirmed the order dated 06.02.2015
and gave a further direction to the register authority to
calculate the stamp duty on Rs. 30 lacs being the
consideration value mentioned in the original deed.
Thereafter the Company received a letter dated 17.07.2015
from the office of ARA-I thereby informing them that the
documents have been admitted for registration having new
deed no. 05806 of 2015 and asked for IGR in order to take
delivery of original deed of conveyance as without receiving
the original IGR, the office of the ARA -I would not hand over
the original document. Thereafter, the company made an
application in connection with the instant proceeding being
CRAN No. 6 of 2023 which was disposed of by this Hon’ble
Court vide order dated 22.06.2023 with a direction to hand
over the original deed to the petitioner. As the solemn order
of this Hon’ble Court was not abided by the ARA-I, a
contempt proceeding was drawn up by this very bench vide
6
order dated 17.10.2023. Pursuant to the contempt rule
issued by this Hon’ble Court, the original re-numbered deed
of conveyance bearing no. 05806 /2015 was handed over to
the petitioner. In the meantime, charge sheet was submitted
against the petitioner and one Debasish Shaw for allegedly
committing offences punishable under Sections
467/468/471/420/379/411/120B of the IPC.
Argument advanced:-
3. Mr. Sabyasachi Banerjee, Ld. Senior Counsel, appearing on
behalf of the petitioners has highlighted the admitted
position that the title and possession of the property is not
disputed and the same belongs to the Company of the
petitioner herein which was registered in favour of the
Company by the official liquidator of this Hon’ble Court in
Court sale. Therefore, the allegation of stealing one’s own
deed stands absolutely frivolous.
4. Mr. Banerjee has further submitted that the allegations
leveled in the charge sheet do not make out any of the
offences alleged and in addition to that he has further
expressed his surprise to the fact that the impugned charge
sheet was filed after the Hon’ble Division Bench adjudicated
7the amount of stamp duty which was to be paid in favour of
the petitioner.
5. Before parting with, Ld. Senior Counsel has expressed his
concern that the motive asserted by the investigating agency
for commission of the alleged offences was to avoid additional
stamp duty but such issue was already put to rest by the
Hon’ble Division Bench. Therefore, no mens rea to cause
such alleged theft is made out. Accordingly, Mr. Banerjee has
tried to make this Court understand that if such highly
improbable and absurd prosecution is allowed to linger
further, then it would be a gross abuse of the process of law.
6. In order to further strengthen his argument, Mr. Banerjee
has taken assistance of the following cases:-
S.K. Alagh vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and others,
(2008) 5 Supreme Court Cases 662
State of Haryana and others vs. Bhajanlal and
others, 1992 Supp (1) Supreme Court Cases 335
Sheila Sebastian vs. R. Jawaharaj and another (2018)
7 Supreme Court Cases 581
Sharad Kumar Sanghi vs. Sangita Rane, (2015) 12
Supreme Court Cases 781
8 Maksud Saiyed vs. State of Gujrat and others, (2008)
5 Supreme Court Cases 668
State of West Bengal vs. Sati Enclave Pvt. Ltd & Ors,
2010 SCC OnLine Cal 1569
7. Ld. Senior Counsel, Mr. Banerjee in the light of the ratios
elucidated by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the cases mentioned
hereinabove, has stated that as the allegations mentioned in
the FIR are frivolous, absurd and without any substantial
basis, there is no sufficient ground to proceed against the
accused. Uncontroverted allegations made in the FIR do not
make out any plausible case against the accused therefore it
is a fit case for exercise of inherent jurisdiction for securing
the ends of justice.
8. Per contra, Mr. Rana Mukherjee, Ld. Additional Public
Prosecutor, appearing on behalf of the State has refuted all
the submissions advanced at the behest of the petitioner and
accordingly argues that materials collected during the course
of investigation indicate forgery and removal of the deed from
the office of the opposite party no. 2 without due process of
law and also the investigation has revealed credible material
corroborating the allegation in the written complaint and
9therefore the instant proceeding should not be throttled at
this nascent stage by taking recourse to Section 482 of the
CrPC.
9. Mr. Mukherjee has concluded his argument by submitting
that the stand of the petitioner as to whom the receipt had
been handed over to, if any and how he procured the deed
are disputed question of fact which can only be ascertained
and proved after extensive trial. Therefore, this Hon’ble
Court while dealing with an application under Section 482
CrPC is not allowed to consider the plea of the petitioner
which has been vociferously placed by the Ld. Senior
Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner.
10. In support of this contention, Mr. Mukherjee has referred
to the ratio of the following cases mentioned hereinunder:-
S.M. Datta vs. State of Gujarat and another, (2001) 7
Supreme Court Cases 659
Directorate of Enforcement vs. Niraj Tyagi and others,
(2024) 5 Supreme Court Cases 419
Union of India and others vs. B.R. Bajaj and others,
(1994) 2 Supreme Court Cases 277
10 Kamaladevi Agarwal vs. State of W.B. and others,
(2002) 1 Supreme Court Cases 555
11. Through the above referred cases Mr. Mukherjee has
tried to take assistance of exhaustive, settled ratio
enunciated by the Hon’ble Supreme Court which clearly
suggests that if the FIR reveals commission of an offence
then the investigation ought not to be scuttled. The
genuineness of the averments enshrined in the FIR cannot
be looked into. If the FIR is able to communicate or indicate
possible disclosure of an offence even broadly then the
question relating to quashing of the complaint would not
arise.
Analysis:-
12. At the very outset, it would profitable to first venture into
the ratios cited at the behest of both the parties. After a
careful perusal of the cases adduced on behalf of the State it
has come to my notice that the main tone and tenor of the
cited judgments clearly speak about not interfering with the
process of investigation by exercising power under Section
482 of the CrPC. However, I would only like to remind the
admitted position of this case where the investigating agency
11has indeed filed a charge sheet after thorough investigation.
Therefore, in my humble opinion the ratios of the cases cited
by the State do not hold any applicability to the case at
hand. Alternatively, the Hon’ble Apex Court itself in the case
of S.M. Dutta (supra) has made it crystal clear that there
cannot possibly be any guiding factor as to which
investigation ought to be and ought not to be scuttled as
factual matrix of each case differs from one another.
13. Before delving into the intricacies of the case at hand, it
would be pertinent to briefly remind one and all about the
settled principle enunciated by the Hon’ble Apex Court time
and again through a plethora of decisions in connection with
exercise of inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 of the
CrPC.
14. At the stage of discharge and /or while exercising the
power under Section 482 of the CrPC, the Court has a very
limited jurisdiction and is only required to consider
“whether any sufficient material is available to proceed
further against the accused for which the accused is
required to be tried or not.” The only material requirement
which is to be considered is a prima facie case and the
12
material collected during investigation, which warrants the
accused to be tried.
15. In the above conspectus, if I shift my focus towards the
factual matrix of the case at hand, the main genesis of the
criminal prosecution would revolve around the components
of forgery and theft. In a bewildering twist of legal theater, a
peculiar acquisition has emerged. The very individual who
triumphantly acquired a property through the solemn
proceedings of this High Court auction and who
subsequently presented the deed for official registration now
stands accused of pilfering those same documents from the
Registry Office – an allegation that stretches the bounds of
logic and reason to the point of absurdity.
16. Now coming to the issue of non-production of IGR as a
testament to the allegation of theft of original deed by the
petitioner from the office of the ARA-I, it would be pertinent
to mention that when corrections are made in compliance
with the Court order, the Registry Office is not necessarily
required to issue a separate IGR for making necessary
correction provided such correction is duly supported by the
Court order. That apart, there is no specific provision of the
13
Registration Act, 1908 relating to issuance of IGR while
accepting a deed for correction. This process is governed by
procedural rules which do not mandate issuance of any
certificate. In the light of the aforesaid discussion, if I make a
cumulative evaluation of the orders of the Hon’ble Co-
ordinate Bench as well as the Division Bench, especially the
order dated 06.02.2015, it expressly directed the registering
authority to immediately register the original deed of
conveyance and complete the process of rectification within a
specific time frame. Now coming to the order of the Hon’ble
Division Bench dated 27.04.2015, it not only ratified the
order of the Hon’ble Co-ordinate Bench but further specified
the quantum of consideration value to be fixed in compliance
with Court sale. Therefore in common parlance it can be well
presumed that the A.R.A. – I had ample opportunity to raise
all his grievances before the Court of Law as the complaint
which gave rise to the instant prosecution was lodged on
17.10.2014 which is prior to the orders passed by this
Hon’ble Court. But instead of raising these issues during the
course of proceedings, the Registering Authority complied
with the Court order and accordingly issued a letter to the
14
petitioner thereby informing them about the admission of
documents for registration which further buttress the plea of
innocence of the petitioner.
17. Amidst this trying situation the main allegation levelled
against the petitioner that the company had cheated by not
paying deficit stamp duly of Rs. 17 lacs corresponding to the
market value of the property as well as forgery and theft of
the original deed of conveyance finds no locus and
continuation of such vague, absurd and highly improbable
criminal proceeding would indeed be a gross abuse of the
process of Court as the instant criminal prosecution has got
no legs to stand on its own.
18. In the light of the discussion made hereinabove, the
factual background of this case squarely attracts the
parameter no. 5 enunciated in the landmark case of
Bhajanlal (supra) which runs as follows:-
” 102. In the backdrop of the interpretation of
the various relevant provisions of the Code
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 or the
inherent powers under Section 482 of the
15Code which we have extracted and
reproduced above, we give the following
categories of cases by way of illustration
wherein such power could be exercised either
to prevent abuse of the process of any court or
otherwise to secure the ends of justice, though
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 of
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.
16
(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 concerned Act (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
concerned Act, 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.”
19. Therefore, keeping in mind the settled proposition of law
while discharging the onus of exercising inherent
jurisdiction, this Court is of the opinion that the proceeding
17
in connection with GR Case No. 2738 of 2014 arising out of
Hare Street Police Station Case no. 690 of 2014 dated
11.12.2014 is liable to be quashed.
20. As sequel, the revision application being no. CRR 3696 of
2016 stands allowed and the impugned proceeding is hereby
quashed.
21. Connected applications, if there be any, stand disposed
of accordingly.
22. Case diary be returned at once.
23. All parties to this revisional application shall act on the
server copy of this order duly downloaded from the official
website of this Court.
24. Urgent Photostat certified copy of this order, if applied
for, be supplied to the parties upon compliance with all
requisite formalities.
[BIBHAS RANJAN DE, J.]
[ad_1]
Source link