- (1.) THE Judgment of the Court was as follows : This is an application under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (henceforth to be referred as Code of 1973) praying for quashing of the criminal proceedings being Anandapur police station case No.36 of 2011 dated 6th June, 2011 under section 147, 148, 149, 448, 326, 307, 302, 506, 201 and 120 B of the Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as I.P.C.) read with sections 25 and 27 of the Arms Act corresponding to Sessions Trial No.XIX of January, 2012 pending before the learned Additional Sessions Judge, 4th Court, Paschim Medinipore and the charge sheet, so submitted in connection therewith.
(2.) THE case of the petitioner accused may be summarized in short as follows:- One Shyamal Acharya, son of late Ajoy Acharya lodged a written complaint dated 5th of June, 2011 alleging that on 22.09.2002 while his father along with some Trinamool Congress members came to his native house the present petitioner together with 39 other accused persons named therein belonging to the political party CPI(M) armed with fire arms, bombs and deadly weapons came to their house and started to assault his father and his companions and chased them up to Piyasala village and killed his father and his companions total seven in number in the farmyard of one Gobinda Maji. In said complaint it was further alleged that though after few days said incident was informed in writing to the Midnapur S. P. but Keshpur Police station received the written complaint only on 26th September, 2002 through the S. P. It was further alleged therein that after learning the incident of recovery of some human skeletons by police by digging earth on Dasherband, Keshpur he went there and identified the skeleton of his father by seeing his wearing apparels as well as his teeth. On the basis of said specific complaint of Shyamal Acharya Anandapur Police Station case No.36 of 2011 dated 6th of June, 2011 was started which ended in filing charge sheet under sections 147, 148, 149, 341, 367, 449, 326, 307, 302, 201, 109, 114, 115, 117 and 120 B. Over the self-same incident Shyamal's sister Chandana Acharya filed a complaint which was registered as Keshpur P. S. case No.61 dated 26.09.2002. In said case charge sheet was submitted and after full- fledged trial the accused persons were acquitted. Neither in the FIR nor in the charge sheet nor during evidence the name of the present petitioner was disclosed as a co-accused in said Keshpur P. S. case No.61 of 2002. Apart from said specific Keshpur P. S. case No.61 of 2002, over the alleged incident of 22nd of September, 2002 three more cases being Keshpur P. S. case No.58, Keshpur P. S. case No.59 and Keshpur P. S. case No.60 all of 2002 were initiated resulting filing of charge sheets. In none of those cases the present petitioner's name appeared at any point of time as a person involved in any of the incidents held on 22nd of • September, 2002. After long 9 years of the alleged incident a false complaint was filed to rope the present petitioner on account of political rivalry. The present FIR being Keshpur P. S. Case No.36 dated 6th of June, 2011 has been filed with mala fide and malicious intention with ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance on the accused petitioner on account of political rivalry. The present petitioner at the relevant time was an elected Member of Legislative Assembly and also a Minister of State, Department of Labour, Government of West Bengal. The petitioner was an active member of the CPI(M) party and after the change of political scenario in West Bengal this false complaint was filed at the behest of the rival political party Trinamool Congress to malign as well as to harass the petitioner in a false case. The petitioner has accordingly prayed for quashing the pending criminal proceeding.
(3.) MR . Sekhar Basu, learned senior counsel appearing for the O. P. State, submits that the instant petition is not maintainable as the petitioner may very well ventilate his grievances at the time of hearing on the point of framing of charge. According to him, if there is a specific provision in the Code of 1973 for ventilating the grievances then this Court should be reluctant to invoke the extraordinary power under section 482 of the Code of 1973. According to him, as the sessions case is presently posted for hearing on the point of framing of charge this Court should not entertain the instant application and should reject the same being not maintainable.;