BHASKAR CHATTORAJ Vs. STATE OF WEST BENGAL
LAWS(SC)-1990-11-69
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA (FROM: CALCUTTA)
Decided on November 14,1990

BHASKAR CHATTORAJ Appellant
VERSUS
STATE OF WEST BENGAL Respondents


Cited Judgements :-

ATIQUE AHMED VS. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH [LAWS(ALL)-2001-8-14] [REFERRED TO]
SHAM SUNDER VS. STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH [LAWS(HPH)-1993-3-5] [REFERRED TO]
PEARL BEVERAGES LIMITED VS. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH [LAWS(APH)-2000-6-69] [REFERRED]
AJITH ROSSAVAN PHILIP VS. THOMAS GEORGE [LAWS(MAD)-2008-12-146] [REFERRED TO]
BIPUL KUMAR VS. STATE OF BIHAR [LAWS(PAT)-2006-11-11] [REFERRED TO]
SHAM SUNDER VS. STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH [LAWS(HPH)-1993-3-8] [REFERRED TO: (1991 CRI LJ 451)]
RAMESH SETHIA VS. STATE OF RAJASTHAN [LAWS(RAJ)-1996-7-14] [REFERRED TO]
SUBAL CHANDRA GHOSH AND ORS. VS. THE STATE OF WEST BENGAL AND ORS. [LAWS(CAL)-2015-7-46] [REFERRED TO]


JUDGEMENT

S. Ratnavel Pandian J. - (1.)Special leave granted.
(2.)We heard learned Counsel for both the parties for a considerable length of time and waded through the entire records. The High Court by its impugned order has expressed its disinclination to quash the criminal proceedings instituted against the appellant for an offence under Section 448, I.P.C. and dismissed his petition on the ground that a perusal of the documents submitted under Section 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure has spelt out a prima facie case against the appellant for his trial for the said offence. It transpires from the records that this appellant along with two others are put up for the trial. The charge leyelled against the other two accused persons is under Section 448 and 380, I.P.C. while the charge against the appellant is only under Sec. 448, I.P.C. as aforementioned. Be it noted that though Section 448 is a summons case as the appellant is put on joint trial along with the other two accused against whom the charges are framed inclusive of a warrant case under S. 380, I.P.C., a separate charge has been framed against this appellant.
(3.)This prosecution is instituted by a complaint given by one N. D. Narayan, Director of Sangita Estates Private Limited dated 13-11-85 in continuation of the earlier complaint dated 10-11-85 followed by a further report dt. 15-11-85 in which a vague allegation. is levelled against the appellant reading, "We suspect that our Durwan has been moved away by Mrs. C. Solomon and Shri Bhaskar Chattaraj with the assistance/ help/support of Shri Suniti Chattarj". We carefully and meticulosly went through the entire reports as well as the statements of the witnesses recorded under Section 162 of the Criminal Procedure Code during the course of the investigation and on perusal of the records, we are satisfied that there is no material connecting the appellant with the alleged offence of criminal trespass. The learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent is not able to satisfy us showing any material that would justify the implication of the appellant with the offence for which he now stands charged. In our considered opinion, no conviction c-an be recorded on the mere vague allegations, that too made only in the petition dated 15-11-85 and as such the entire proceedings as against this appellant is only an abuse of the process of the Court. In view of the above circumstances, we quash the charge framed as against this appellant under S. 448, I.P.C. Before parting with the judgment, we make it clear that we are not expressing any opinion on the merits of the case of the other accused and the Court trying the case shall not be influenced by any of the observations made in this judgment or by this order quashing of the charge - under S.448, I.P.C. in respect of this appellant. In he result, we set aside the impugned order of the High Court and quash the entire proceedings as against this appellant.
;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.