Sankar Acharyya, J. - (1.) THREE petitioners Raju Das, Rupa Das and Rajib Sadhukhan have jointly filed this application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure against the State of West Bengal and Rekha Rani Das as Opposite Party Nos. 1 and 2 respectively. Petitioners have prayed for quashing of charge -sheet being No. 80/12 dated 30.01.2012 filed in G.R. Case No. 5415/2011 arising out of Barasat Police Station Case No. 2120/2011 dated 10.11.2011 under Sections 447/323/427/506/34 of the Indian Penal Code now pending before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Barasat, 24 Parganas (North) against the petitioners.
(2.) SUCCINCTLY , petitioners' case is that Opposite Party No. 2 is the mother of petitioner No. 1, petitioner No. 2 is wife of petitioner No. 1 and petitioner No. 3 is minor brother of petitioner No. 2. Petitioner No. 1 works in Indian Army and now posted as driver of C.R.P.F. in Tripura. It is the claim of the petitioner No. 1 that his mother Opposite Party No. 2 gifted her house property to petitioner No. 1 on 31.12.2010. Subsequently, petitioner No. 1 gifted the same property to his wife on 01.08.2011. Opposite Party No. 2 has been living in the same house even after said transfers of the property. It has been alleged in substance that since after transfer of the property in favour of petitioner No. 2 the Opposite Party No. 2 commits torture upon petitioner No. 2. On such issue several cases are pending between them. A civil suit has been filed by Opposite Party No. 2 relating to that house property and said suit is pending. During pendency of the suit the Opposite Party No. 2 has filed a complaint against the petitioners in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Barasat, alleging an occurrence dated 12.10.2011 committed by petitioners with prayer for investigation treating the complaint as FIR under Section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The complaint was treated as FIR and the case was investigated by police. Charge -sheet has been filed against all the three petitioners alleging offences punishable under Sections 447/323/427/506/34 of the Indian Penal Code. Petitioners have claimed that the allegations are false and charge -sheet is baseless. They have prayed for quashing the charge -sheet by exercising power of this Court under Sections 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. At the time of hearing learned Counsel for the petitioners has argued that the petitioners have sufficient documents to prove that the charge -sheet is baseless. He has relied upon a decision of the Supreme Court of India in the case of State of Orissa v. Debendra Nath Padhi reported in : (2005) 1 SCC 568.
(3.) IN this case of the petitioners they have filed copies of complaint and charge -sheet filed in the Court below against these petitioners. Filing copies of a deed of gift executed by petitioner No. 1 in favour of petitioner No. 2 they intend to establish that Opposite Party No. 2 has no more right, title, interest or possession in the house property which is the alleged place of occurrence of criminal trespass, causing mischief etc. It is admission of petitioners that Opposite Party No. 2 has filed civil suit in respect of that house property before the date of alleged occurrence and suit is pending about civil right of plaintiff over that house property. However, in the criminal complaint about the alleged occurrence dispute regarding right, title, interest etc. of that house property has not been urged. Petitioners have admitted that Opposite Party No. 2 has also been residing in that house. Petitioners have filed copies of documents to show that petitioner No. 3 was a minor boy on the date of alleged occurrence. They have also filed copies of statements of witnesses recorded by Investigating Police Officer during investigation of the case and said statements appear to be in support of the charge -sheet. Some copies of documents have been filed by petitioners to establish that petitioner No. 1 was granted E.L. for fifteen days with effect from 13.10.2011 to 27.10.2011 and he was allowed to proceed on leave permitting him air -courier journey (AIR INDIA) from Agartala to Kolkata on 12.10.2011. They have claimed that it was not possible for petitioner No. 1 to take part in any occurrence at the alleged place of occurrence on 12.10.2011 at 12:30 p.m. In my view, prima facie, said copies of documents ipso -facto do not establish alibi of petitioner No. 1. Petitioners do not claim that they made any prayer before learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Barasat for considering their any evidence. They have not even stated that they entered appearance before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Barasat although they have been shown as absconders in the charge -sheet. They pray for quashing the charge -sheet which speaks about their intention not to face trial about the allegations of complaint brought against them. But they want to get the termination of the proceeding which is pending in the Court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Barasat obtaining an order from this High Court exercising inherent power of this Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. Their such intention does not get support from the cited decision reported in : (2005) 1 SCC 568.;